en to zh_CN translation catalogue (130 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: FSF's Brief Amicus Curiae, Eldred v. Ashcroft - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_CN: 自由软件基金会的法庭之友意见书：Eldred 诉 Ashcroft 案 - GNU 工程 - 自由软件基金会

note: type: Content of: <div><h2>
en: FSF's Brief Amicus Curiae, Eldred&nbsp;v.&nbsp;Ashcroft
zh_CN: 自由软件基金会的法庭之友意见书：Eldred 诉 Ashcroft 案

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: [This document is also available in <a href="/philosophy/eldred-amicus.ps">PostScript</a> and <a href="/philosophy/eldred-amicus.pdf">PDF</a> formats.]
zh_CN: [本文也有 <a href="/philosophy/eldred-amicus.ps">PostScript</a> 和 <a href="/philosophy/eldred-amicus.pdf">PDF</a> 版本。]

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: <b>Supreme Court of the United States</b>
zh_CN: <b>美国最高法院</b>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: E<small>RIC </small>E<small>LDRED</small>, <i>et al.</i>,
zh_CN: E<small>RIC </small>E<small>LDRED</small>，<i>等</i>，

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: <i>Petitioners,</i>
zh_CN: <i>上诉人，</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: v.
zh_CN: 诉

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: J<small>OHN </small>D. A<small>SHCROFT</small>, In his official capacity
zh_CN: J<small>OHN </small>D. A<small>SHCROFT</small>，作为正式任职

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: as Attorney General,
zh_CN: 司法部长，

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: <i>Respondent.</i>
zh_CN: <i>被告。</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p><b>
en: <b>On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
zh_CN: <b>驳回重申：

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p><b>
en: Court of Appeals for the
zh_CN: 巡回上诉法院

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: District of Columbia Circuit</b>
zh_CN: 哥伦比亚特区</b>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p><b>
en: <b>Brief <i>Amicus Curiae</i> of the
zh_CN: <b><i>法庭之友</i> 意见书

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p><b>
en: Free Software Foundation
zh_CN: 自由软件基金会

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: in Support of Petitioners</b>
zh_CN: 支持上诉人</b>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><address>
en: <i>Counsel of record</i>
zh_CN: <i>代理律师</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><address>
en: 435 West 116th Street
zh_CN: 116 西街 465 号

note: type: Content of: <div><div><address>
en: New York, NY 10027
zh_CN: 纽约，纽约州 10027

note: type: Content of: <div><div><address>
en: Counsel for <i>Amicus Curiae</i>
zh_CN: <i>法庭之友</i> 的律师

note: type: Content of: <div><div><h3>
en: Question Presented
zh_CN: 提出的问题

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ol><li>
en: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that, under the Copyright Clause, Congress may indefinitely extend the term of existing copyrights by <i>seriatim</i> adoption of nominally &ldquo;limited&rdquo; extensions?
zh_CN: 上诉庭是否犯错，当它认为基于版权条款，国会可以通过 <i>连续</i> 采纳名义上 &ldquo;有限的&rdquo; 延期而无限地延续现有的版权？

note: type: Content of: <div><div><h3>
en: Contents
zh_CN: 内容

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html16" href="#SECTION01000000000000000000">Question Presented</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html16" href="#SECTION01000000000000000000">提出的问题</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html17" href="#SECTION02000000000000000000">Contents</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html17" href="#SECTION02000000000000000000">内容</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html18" href="#SECTION03000000000000000000">Table of Authorities</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html18" href="#SECTION03000000000000000000">权力表格</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html19" href="#SECTION04000000000000000000">Interest of <i>Amicus Curiae</i></a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html19" href="#SECTION04000000000000000000"><i>法律之友</i> 的利益</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html20" href="#SECTION05000000000000000000">Summary of Argument</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html20" href="#SECTION05000000000000000000">论据总结</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html21" href="#SECTION06000000000000000000">Argument</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html21" href="#SECTION06000000000000000000">论据</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html22" href="#SECTION06010000000000000000">I. The Framers Intended Copyright to Be a Statutory Monopoly Awarded to Works of Authorship For A Strictly Limited Time</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html22" href="#SECTION06010000000000000000">I. 版权制定者原意是授予创作者在严格有限时间内的法定垄断权。</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html23" href="#SECTION06020000000000000000">II. The Historical Policy Embodied in the Copyright Clause is Absolutely Essential to Reconcile the Copyright Monopoly with the System of Free Expression</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html23" href="#SECTION06020000000000000000">II. 版权条款里包含的历史政策对调和版权垄断权和自由表达权是绝对关键的。</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html24" href="#SECTION06021000000000000000">A. Indefinite Extension of the Term of Monopoly on Existing Works of Authorship is Incompatible with Both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html24" href="#SECTION06021000000000000000">A. 无限期延续现有作品著作权的垄断条款既不兼容版权条款，也不符合第一修正案。</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html25" href="#SECTION06022000000000000000">B. The Fifth Amendment Prohibits Legislative Action Such as This With Respect to Physical Property Rights, and There Is No Constitutional Justification for Permitting What Cannot Be Done with Mere Property to be Done with Free Expression</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html25" href="#SECTION06022000000000000000">B. 第五修正案对有形产权禁止此类立法，并且也没有宪法理由允许不能被简单产权解决的事情应该由自由表达权解决。</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html26" href="#SECTION06030000000000000000">III. Particular Dangers of Abuse and Corruption Justify Strict Constitutional Scrutiny When the Term of Statutory Monopolies is Extended</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html26" href="#SECTION06030000000000000000">III. 当法定垄断权被延期，其中滥用和腐败的危险应当接受严格的宪法审查。</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="tex2html27" href="#SECTION07000000000000000000">Conclusion</a>
zh_CN: <a id="tex2html27" href="#SECTION07000000000000000000">结论</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><h3>
en: Table of Authorities
zh_CN: 权力表格

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><h4>
en: <i>Cases</i>
zh_CN: <i>案例</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) 10
zh_CN: Abrams 诉 美国，250 U.S. 616 (1919) 10

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Darcy v. Allen, (The Case of Monopolies),
zh_CN: Darcy 诉 Allen，（垄断之案），

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Eldred v. Reno, 239 F.3d 372 (CADC 2001) 7, <i>passim</i>
zh_CN: Eldred 诉 Reno, 239 F.3d 372 (CADC 2001) 7, <i>多处可见</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone
zh_CN: Feist Publications, Inc. 诉 Rural Telephone

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) 12
zh_CN: Goldstein 诉 California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) 12

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Harper &amp; Row, Publishers, Inc.  v. Nation
zh_CN: Harper &amp; Row, Publishers, Inc. 诉  Nation

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Hawaii Housing Authority v.
zh_CN: Hawaii Housing Authority 诉

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) 10
zh_CN: New York Times Co. 诉 Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) 10

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,
zh_CN: Reno 诉 American Civil Liberties Union,

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: San Francisco Arts &amp; Athletics, Inc. v.
zh_CN: San Francisco Arts &amp; Athletics, Inc. 诉

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: United States Olympic Committee,
zh_CN: 美国奥委会，

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (CADC 1981) 11
zh_CN: Schnapper 诉 Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (CADC 1981) 11

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) 11
zh_CN: 商标案，100 U.S. 82 (1879) 11

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
zh_CN: West Virginia Board of Education 诉 Barnette,

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><h4>
en: <i>Constitutions, Statutes, and Regulations</i>
zh_CN: <i>宪法、法典和条例</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: U.S. Const. Art. I, &#167;8, cl.&nbsp;8 3, <i>passim</i>
zh_CN: 美国宪法 Art. I, &#167;8, cl.&nbsp;8 3, <i>各处可见</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: U.S. Const. Amend. I 7, <i>passim</i>
zh_CN: 美国宪法修正案 I 7, <i>各处可见</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: U.S. Const. Amend. V 13,14
zh_CN: 美国宪法修正案 V 13,14

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Copyright Act of 1709 (Statute of Anne),
zh_CN: 版权法令 1709 (Statute of Anne),

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Copyright Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 124 6
zh_CN: 版权法令 1790, 1 Stat. 124 6

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Sonny Bono Copyright Term
zh_CN: Sonny Bono 版权期限

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Extension Act, Pub.&nbsp;L.&nbsp;No.&nbsp;105-298,
zh_CN: 延期法令，Pub.&nbsp;L.&nbsp;No.&nbsp;105-298,

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Title I, 112 Stat. 2827 3, <i>passim</i>
zh_CN: Title I, 112 Stat. 2827 3, <i>各处可见</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac.&nbsp;I, c.&nbsp;3 5
zh_CN: 垄断法典，21 Jac.&nbsp;I, c.&nbsp;3 5

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><h4>
en: <i>Other Materials</i>
zh_CN: <i>其他材料</i>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Yochai Benkler, Free as the Air to Common
zh_CN: Yochai Benkler，如空气般的免费

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Use: First Amendment Constraints on
zh_CN: 公用：第一修正案对

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Enclosure of the Public Domain,
zh_CN: 共有领域范围的限制，

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: William Blackstone, Commentaries on
zh_CN: William Blackstone，评论

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: the Laws of England (1769) 5
zh_CN: 英国法律 (1769) 5

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: The Charter and General Laws of the Colony
zh_CN: 麻省湾区殖民地和省区

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: and Province of Massachusetts Bay (Boston, 1814) 6
zh_CN: 宪章和普通法 (波士顿，1814) 6

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom
zh_CN: Thomas I. Emerson，自由表达权

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: of Expression (1970) 9
zh_CN: 系统 (1970) 9

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal
zh_CN: Max Farrand，1787 之联邦

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Convention of 1787 (1937) 6
zh_CN: 大会记录 (1937) 6

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: George Lee Haskins, Law and Authority
zh_CN: George Lee Haskins，麻省早期

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: in Early Massachusetts (1960) 6
zh_CN: 之法律和权力 (1960) 6

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Melville B. Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge
zh_CN: Melville B. Nimmer，版权是否删减

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: the First Amendment Guaranties of Free Speech
zh_CN: 第一修正案赋予的言论自由

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: and the Press?, 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1180 (1970) 8
zh_CN: 和出版自由？17 UCLA L. Rev. 1180 (1970) 8

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Mark Rose, Authors and Owners:
zh_CN: Mark Rose，作者和所有者：

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: The Invention of Copyright (1993) 6
zh_CN: 版权的发明 (1993) 6

note: type: Content of: <div><div><div><ul><li>
en: Cecily Violet Wedgwood, The King's Peace (1955) 5
zh_CN: Cecily Violet Wedgwood，国王的和平 (1955) 5

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Interest of <i>Amicus Curiae</i>
zh_CN: <i>法律之友</i> 的利益

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This brief is filed on behalf of the Free Software Foundation, a charitable corporation with its main offices in Boston, Massachusetts.<a id="tex2html1" href="#foot151"><strong>[1]</strong></a> The Foundation believes that people should be free to study, share and improve all the software they use, as they are free to share and improve all the recipes they cook with, and that this right is an essential aspect of the system of free expression in a technological society.  The Foundation has been working to achieve this goal since 1985 by directly developing and distributing, and by helping others to develop and distribute, software that is licensed on terms that permit all users to copy, modify and redistribute the works, so long as they give others the same freedoms to use, modify and redistribute in turn.  The Foundation is the largest single contributor to the GNU operating system (used widely today in its GNU/Linux variant for computers from PCs to supercomputer clusters).  The Foundation's GNU General Public License is the most widely used &ldquo;free software&rdquo; license, covering major components of the GNU operating system and tens of thousands of other computer programs used on tens of millions of computers around the world.  The Foundation is strongly interested in the use and development of copyright law to encourage sharing, and to protect the rights of users and the public domain.
zh_CN: 本意见书以自由软件基金会的名义提交。自由软件基金会是主要办公地点位于麻省波士顿的一个慈善组织。<a id="tex2html1" href="#foot151"><strong>[1]</strong></a>它坚信人们有学习、分享和改进所用软件的自由，正如人们有分享和改进做饭菜谱的自由，而且这项权利是自由表达权在技术社会非常重要的一个体现。该基金会从 1985 年就开始为实现此目标而奋斗，它参与直接开发和分发以及帮助其他人开发和分发一类软件，这类软件的许可证允许所有用户自由复制、修改和分发，只要用户给予其他人同样的使用、修改和分发自由。该基金会还是 GNU 操作系统（今天广为计算机和服务器使用的 GNU/Linux 就是 GNU 的一个变种）的单一最大贡献者。该基金会的 GNU 通用公共许可证是被最广泛使用的 &ldquo;自由软件&rdquo; 许可证，它涵盖被全球千千万万计算机使用的 GNU 操作系统的主要部件和成千上万的其他计算机程序。该基金会对使用和发展版权法来鼓励分享、保护用户和共有领域权利非常有兴趣。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Summary of Argument
zh_CN: 论据汇总

note: type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
en: Actually, Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever.
zh_CN: 实际上，索尼 [Bono] 想让版权保护永久持续下去。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: If the late Representative Bono believed that was possible, he was mistaken.  The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Congressmen sharing his object can achieve what the Constitution expressly forbids, simply because they do so in a series of enactments rather than a single statute.
zh_CN: 假使已故众议员 Bono 相信此事是可能的，那么他错了。上诉庭相信与 Bono 持有共同目标的国会议员——仅仅因为他们可以通过一系列法令而非一个法典做到——可以实现宪法明确禁止的事情，他们错了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: No one seriously contends that Congress may achieve an expressly unauthorized end by dividing the means of its achievement into multiple statutes.  Yet the Court of Appeals held that, so long as each individual statute states a precise numerical increment, Congress can extend the life of existing copyrights indefinitely.  This conclusion is in direct conflict with the language of the Copyright Clause, Article I, &#167;8, cl.&nbsp;8, in its natural sense.  The constitutional history of England and British North America, moreover, is unambiguous about the importance of &ldquo;limited Times&rdquo; in the control of all state-awarded monopolies, of which genus copyright and patent are species.  The very evils that led English and British North American constitutional lawyers to insist on the strictly limited term of royal and statutory monopolies, and to embody that requirement in the Copyright Clause of Article I, are present in the retroactive extension of existing copyrights by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Pub.&nbsp;L.&nbsp;No.&nbsp;105-298, Title I, 112 Stat. 2827, at issue in this case.
zh_CN: 没人严肃地主张国会也许能通过把目标分解成多个法典来实现白纸黑字无权实现的结局。但是上诉庭却坚信这一点：只要每个单独的法典确定一个精确的数值增长，那么国会就能够把现有版权无限期地延长。这个结论直接和版权条例第一款, &#167;8, cl.&nbsp;8 的自然解释相矛盾。更进一步，英国和北美宪法的历史对政府授予的所有垄断权的 &ldquo;时限&rdquo; 毫不含糊，其中就包括版权和专利这些子类。英国和北美宪法律师坚持严格限制皇家和法定垄断并引入版权条例第一款的原因是针对一种恶意，这种恶意正是 Sonny Bono 版权条款延期法案（CTEA），Pub.&nbsp;L.&nbsp;No.&nbsp;105-298, Title I, 112 Stat. 2827 在此案中体现的恶意——对现有版权追溯既往的延期。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In the sphere of copyright, the limited time requirement protects the public domain, by providing for its constant enrichment.  The public domain is an essential resource of our constitutional system of free expression.  As this Court has previously recognized, several aspects of the copyright system represent constitutionally-required limitations on the nature of the monopoly Congress is empowered to grant.  The limited term is not only a particularly important constitutional limitation on Congressional power by virtue of its presence in the text itself&mdash;which goes beyond the textually-implicit limitations of fair use and the idea-expression dichotomy&mdash;but also in the function it serves: the protection of the common resource of the public domain.
zh_CN: 在版权的范围里，时限的要求保护着公有领域，不断丰富其中的内容。公有领域是自由表达宪法系统的重要资源。正如现法院以前曾确认，版权系统的多个方面代表着宪法要求对垄断本性的限制，而国会有权授予垄断。限制条款不仅对国会权力是特别重要的宪法制约，通过白纸黑字&mdash;&mdash;超越文字对合理使用和思想表达两个分支的隐含限制&mdash;&mdash;而且也对其服务功能限制：保护公有领域的公共资源。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The CTEA unconstitutionally imperils the commons of the public domain by flouting the clear intention of the limited term requirement.  If Congress had acted unilaterally to reduce copyright terms, as the Solicitor General seems to believe it may, forcing some material into the public domain decades ahead of current schedule, no doubt the copyright industries would attack the legislation as a taking.  If, on the other hand, Congress acted to extend every 50-year lease by the federal government for an additional 99 years at the government's current rent, there is no question that compensation would be required.  Congress should not be permitted to take the public's reversionary interest in the public domain, any more than it can take a portion of the copyright holder's original term or of any leasehold interest in real property.  The constitutional system of free expression, the language of the Copyright Clause, and the history of our tradition demand no less.
zh_CN: CTEA 全然不顾限制条款的明确要求，违反宪法置公有领域的公共资源于危险。如果国会单方面降低版权的期限——以总检察长看来可能会发生——强制把某些材料比预期早数十年置于公有领域，那么毫无疑问，版权工业界会攻击此法令为抢劫。另一方面，如果国会法令规定把联邦政府的每个 50 年的租约都按照现有租金额外延长 99 年，那么人们一定会要求补偿。国会不应该允许有人夺走公有领域公众的预期利益，正如它不能夺走版权所有者原始条款的一部分，也如它不能夺走地产出租者收益的应得部分。自由表达的宪法系统、版权条款的语言以及我们传统同样也不允许。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Argument
zh_CN: 论据

note: type: Content of: <div><h4>
en: I. The Framers Intended Copyright to Be a Statutory Monopoly Awarded to Works of Authorship For A Strictly Limited Time
zh_CN: I. 版权制定者的初衷是把版权作为一个法律性的垄断在一段严格有限的时间内授予作品的作者

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The words &ldquo;for limited Times&rdquo; appear in the Copyright Clause, Article I, &#167;8, cl.&nbsp;8 as the result of long and bitter experience with the constitutional evil of state-awarded monopolies.  From the seventeenth century, the requirement of limitation in time was a basic constitutional mechanism for dealing with the potential for abuse of power inherent in the royal or statutory monopoly.  The use by Queen Elizabeth of letters patent monopolizing certain trades as a means of raising money from bidders for monopoly profits gave rise to the case of <i>Darcy</i> v. <i>Allen</i>, (<i>The Case of Monopolies</i>), 11 Co. Rep. 84 (1603), in which a royal patent monopoly on the making and distribution of playing cards was held void.  Parliament followed in 1624 with the Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac.&nbsp;I, c.&nbsp;3, which declared that only Parliament might grant statutory monopolies, limited to new inventions, for a period not to exceed fourteen years.  <i>See</i> 4 William Blackstone, <i>Commentaries on the Laws of England</i> *159 (1769).  This constitutional limitation was evaded by Charles I during his period of despotic personal rule; the resulting royal monopolies formed a significant grievance in the years leading up to the English Civil War.  <i>See</i> Cecily Violet Wedgwood, <i>The King's Peace</i> 156-62 (1955).
zh_CN: &ldquo;在有限的时间内&rdquo; 一词出现在版权条款的 Article I, &#167;8, cl.&nbsp;8，它是国家垄断之宪法恶魔带来的长期痛苦经历之后的产物。从十七世纪始，时限的要求就是对付皇权继承和法律垄断带来的权力滥用的基本机制。伊丽莎白女王使用特许状让某些交易变成垄断，并以此作为从垄断竞价者处集资的手段。这种活动引发诉讼，比如 <i>Darcy</i> 诉 <i>Allen</i>，（<i>垄断之案</i>），11 Co. Rep. 84 (1603)，此案中关于制作和销售游戏卡牌的皇家专利垄断被判无效。议会随后在 1624 年的垄断法典中，21 Jac.&nbsp;I, c.&nbsp;3，宣布只有议会可以授予法律垄断权，仅限新发明，并且期限不得超过十四年。<i>参看</i> 4 William Blackstone，<i>英国法律评论</i> *159 (1769)。该限制被查理一世在其专制统治期间破坏；皇权垄断导致多年严重的不满，以至英国内战。<i>参看</i> Cecily Violet Wedgwood，<i>国王的和平</i> 156-62 (1955)。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: American colonists at odds with the government of Charles I perceived the evil of governmental monopolies; in the Massachusetts Bay Colony as early as 1641, the Colony's General Court decreed that &ldquo;there shall be no monopolies granted or allowed amongst us, but of such new inventions that are profitable to the country, and that for a short time.&rdquo; <i>The Charter and General Laws of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay</i> 170 (Boston, 1814); see also George Lee Haskins, <i>Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts</i> 130 (1960).
zh_CN: 反对查理一世的美国殖民者意识到政府垄断是一种作恶；早在 1641 年的麻省湾区殖民地，殖民地的总法庭就颁布法令 &ldquo;我们不应授予也不允许垄断，除非是该创新能够使国家获益、并且只是授予一小段时间。&rdquo; <i>麻省湾区宪章和一般法</i> 170 (Boston, 1814)；请另外参看 George Lee Haskins，<i>麻省早期法律和权力</i> 130 (1960)。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When the Copyright Act of 1709, the famous &ldquo;Statute of Anne,&rdquo; was framed, the drafters insisted on a limited term far more stringent than authors, including John Locke, had proposed; they adopted the fourteen-year limit from the Statute of Monopolies.  <i>See</i> Mark Rose, <i>Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright</i> 44-47 (1993).  The term provided by the Statute of Anne, fourteen years with a renewal of fourteen years if the author survived the first term, was adopted by First Congress in the Copyright Act of 1790.  <i>See</i> Copyright Act of 1709, 8 Anne, c.&nbsp;19; Act of May 31, 1790, 1 Stat. 124-25.
zh_CN: 在 1709 年的版权法案中，著名的 &ldquo;安妮法典&rdquo; 颁出，起草者坚持比原作者更严格的时效限制，包括原作者 John Locke 的建议；他们对政府垄断采纳了 14 年的期限。<i>参看</i> Mark Rose，<i>作者和所有者：版权的发明</i> 44-47 (1993)。安妮法典提出的条款——如果作者在第一个十四后还活着，那么可以再延期十四年——在 1790 年的版权法案中被第一届国会采纳。<i>参看</i>1709 年版权法案，8 Anne, c.&nbsp;19; Act of May 31, 1790, 1 Stat. 124-25。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The Framers of the Constitution unanimously accepted the idea of the limited term for copyrights in the drafting of Article I, without substantial discussion.  <i>See</i> 2 Max Farrand, <i>The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787</i>, at 321-325, 505-510, 570, 595 (1937).<a id="tex2html2" href="#foot152"><strong>[2]</strong></a> In doing so, as the subsequent employment in the Copyright Act of 1790 of the term of years from the Statute of Monopolies shows, the Framers and the First Congress acted in full awareness of the long history of attempts to control the harm done by statutory monopolies by limiting their term.
zh_CN: 没有太多争议，宪法制定者在第一条草案中全体接受对版权采取时效限制的思想。<i>参看</i> 2 Max Farrand，<i>1787 年联邦大会记录</i>，at 321-325, 505-510, 570, 595 (1937)。<a id="tex2html2" href="#foot152"><strong>[2]</strong></a>因此，后续在 1790 年版权法案涉及法定垄断的年限时，我们看到，制定者和第一届国会完全知晓限制条款是为了控制法定垄断带来的伤害而进行的长期努力。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The constitutional importance of the &ldquo;limited Times&rdquo; restriction cannot be vitiated, as the Court of Appeals' reasoning would do, by affording Congress the opportunity to create perpetuities on the installment plan, any more than Congress can eliminate the constitutional requirement of originality.  <i>Feist Publications, Inc.</i> v. <i>Rural Telephone Service, Co., Inc.</i>, 499 U.S. 340, 346-347 (1991).  The Court of Appeals erred fundamentally in its conclusion that there is &ldquo;nothing in text or in history that suggests that a term of years for a copyright is not a &lsquo;limited Time&rsquo; if it may later be extended for another &lsquo;limited Time.&rsquo;&rdquo; <i>Eldred</i> v. <i>Reno</i>, 239 F.3d 372, 379 (CADC 2001).  In this regard, the CTEA should not be judged in isolation.  The question is whether there is anything in text or history rendering constitutionally objectionable the eleven extensions of the monopoly term in the last forty years, resulting in a virtual cessation of enlargements to the public domain, capped by the statute before the Court, which postpones the reversion on every single existing copyright for decades.
zh_CN: &ldquo;有限时间&rdquo; 限制的宪法重要性不得破坏，不能像上诉庭所描述的那样——通过向国会提供创建无限延期的机会，就象国会不能把宪法的原来要求抹去一样。<i>Feist Publications, Inc.</i> 诉 <i>Rural Telephone Service, Co., Inc.</i>，499 U.S. 340, 346-347 (1991)。上诉庭的结论从根本上就错了，&ldquo;文字或历史上都没有建议版权的年限不是 &lsquo;时间限制&rsquo;，即使它可以后来再延期一段 &lsquo;有限的时间。&rsquo;&rdquo; <i>Eldred</i> 诉 <i>Reno</i>，239 F.3d 372, 379 (CADC 2001)。因此而言，CTEA 不应单独判定。问题是文字或历史上是否有案例像过去四十年来 11 次延期垄断条款这样的令人可憎之事，它导致公有领域的实际停滞，在法庭上以法典的名义，把每条现存版权的回收权推迟数十年。

note: type: Content of: <div><h4>
en: II. The Historical Policy Embodied in the Copyright Clause is Absolutely Essential to Reconcile the Copyright Monopoly with the System of Free Expression
zh_CN: II. 版权条款中的这一历史性政策对使用自由表达系统来调和版权垄断是绝对重要的

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As important as the principle of limited time is in the general restraint of the harms that flow from statutory monopolies, in the area of copyright it has an even more crucial purpose to serve.  The limited term of copyright ensures the steady replenishment of the public domain, the vast repository of the common culture of humankind.  The public domain is the springboard of societal creativity, the zone of free reproduction and exchange that makes innovation possible.  As Yochai Benkler has elegantly shown, the existence of a vital and expanding public domain reconciles the exclusive rights of the copyright system with the underlying goals of the system of free expression protected by the First Amendment.  <i>See</i> Yochai Benkler, <i>Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain</i>, 74 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 354, 386-394 (1999).  The Court below erred in its facile dismissal of petitioners' First Amendment concerns.  That Court first held in its opinion that the First Amendment's requirements are &ldquo;categorically&rdquo; satisfied by the distinction between expression and idea, and then that any material covered by copyright but subject to the defense of fair use is therefore so copiously protected for purposes of free expression that no First Amendment claim can possibly lie.  239 F.3d, at 375-376.
zh_CN: 时效限制的原则和普遍限制法律垄断的伤害一样重要，就版权领域来说，它还要服务更关键的目的。版权的限制条款保证公有领域稳定地丰富起来，这是全人类文化共同的蓄水池。公有领域是社会创新的跳板，是自由生产的旷野，也是滋生发明的碰撞点。正如 Yochai Benkler 优雅地指出，一个至关重要而又不断扩展的公有领域的存在抵消了版权的特权，捍卫了由第一修正保护的自由表达系统所代表的终极目的。<i>参看</i> Yochai Benkler，<i>自由如空气：第一修正案限制对公有领域的封锁</i>，74 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 354, 386-394 (1999)。下述法院轻率地忽视上诉人对第一修正案的担心是一个错误。该法院首先认为第一修正案的要求已经被表达和思想的差异所 &ldquo;明确地&rdquo; 满足了，然后又认为受版权保护但是应该合理使用的材料因此要以自由表达的目的被大量地保护，以免第一修正案被人说是扯谎。239 F.3d, at 375-376。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This position simply cannot be right.  The Court below conceded that an attempt by Congress to make copyright perpetual <i>in haec verba</i> would be prohibited by the language of the Copyright Clause.  <i>Id.</i>, at 377.  But even if the subterfuge of achieving perpetuity piecemeal, by repeated retroactive extensions, somehow evades the plain command of the Copyright Clause, it does not thus render impotent the First Amendment.  As the great copyright scholar Melville Nimmer asked:
zh_CN: 这种立场明显错了。下述法庭承认国会企图 <i>明言</i> 版权永久会被版权条例禁止。<i>Id.</i>, at 377。但是，即使通过重复延期的伎俩慢慢达到永久版权，即使设法规避了版权条例的直接命令，它也无法使第一修正案变得软弱无力。正如伟大的版权学者 Melville Nimmer 问道：

note: type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
en: If I may own Blackacre in perpetuity, why not also <i>Black Beauty</i>? The answer lies in the first amendment.  There is no countervailing speech interest which must be balanced against perpetual ownership of tangible real and personal property.  There is such a speech interest, with respect to literary property, or copyright.
zh_CN: 如果我可以永久拥有不动产，为什么不能一直拥有 <i>黑骏马</i><sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>？答案就在第一修正案中。与永久拥有实际的土地和个人财产相比，并没有与之抗衡的言论利益。言论利益针对的是文学财产，或说是版权。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Melville B. Nimmer, <i>Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guaranties of Free Speech and the Press?</i>, 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1180, 1193 (1970).
zh_CN: Melville B. Nimmer，<i>版权使第一修正案保障的言论和出版自由缩水了吗？</i>，17 UCLA L. Rev. 1180, 1193 (1970)。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Nor has the Court of Appeals' position any support in the holdings of this Court.  On the contrary, as this Court's cases make clear, copyright and related statutory monopolies in expression must conform like any other regulation of speech to the requirements of the First Amendment.  In <i>Harper &amp; Row, Publishers, Inc.</i> v. <i>Nation Enterprises</i>, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), this Court rejected what it characterized as &ldquo;a public figure exception to copyright,&rdquo; because it found sufficient &ldquo;the First Amendment protections already embodied in the Copyright Act's distinction between &hellip; facts and ideas, and the latitude for scholarship and comment traditionally afforded by fair use.&rdquo; <i>Id.</i>, at 560.  Thus, the Court said, it found &ldquo;no warrant&rdquo; for a further expansion of the doctrine of fair use. <i>Id.</i> This by no means implies, as the Court of Appeals somehow concluded, that <i>Harper &amp; Row</i> stands as an &ldquo;insuperable&rdquo; bar to all First Amendment challenges to all subsequent copyright statutes.  <i>See</i> 239 F.3d, at 375.  In <i>San Francisco Arts &amp; Athletics, Inc.</i> v. <i>United States Olympic Committee</i>, 483 U.S. 522 (1987), this Court applied standard First Amendment analysis to a statute conveying special quasi-trademark protection to the word &ldquo;Olympic,&rdquo; asking &ldquo;whether the incidental restrictions on First Amendment freedoms are greater than necessary to further a substantial government interest.&rdquo; <i>Id.</i>, at 537 (citation omitted).
zh_CN: 上诉庭的立场在现法庭上也得不到任何支持。相反，现法庭的案例清晰地表明，表达的版权以及相关法律垄断和其他言论涉及的规范一样，必须符合第一修正案的要求。在 <i>Harper &amp; Row, Publishers, Inc.</i> 诉 <i>Nation Enterprises</i> 一案中，471 U.S. 539 (1985)，现法庭拒绝了把某事划定为 &ldquo;超出版权之外的公共形象&rdquo;，因为它发现 &ldquo;第一修正案的保护已经（充分）包含在版权法令对&hellip; 事实和观点的区别对待以及传统上由合理使用管辖的学术和评价自由之中。&rdquo; <i>Id.</i>, at 560。因此，现法庭说，它发现对合理使用之信条的进一步扩展 &ldquo;无保障&rdquo;。<i>Id。</i>这并不意味着，像上诉庭想要做的结论那样，<i>Harper &amp; Row</i> 对所有第一修正案要挑战的所有后续版权法典是一座 &ldquo;无法逾越&rdquo; 的屏障。<i>参看</i> 239 F.3d, at 375。在 <i>San Francisco Arts &amp; Athletics, Inc.</i> 诉 <i>美国奥委会</i> 一案中，483 U.S. 522 (1987)，现法庭应用第一修正案，对一项传达 &ldquo;Olympic&rdquo; 一词的特殊商标案进行了标准分析，问道 &ldquo;对第一修正案的连带限制是否大于显著扩展政府利益的必要。&rdquo; <i>Id.</i>，at 537（略去引述）。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The First Amendment abhors the vacuum of limited expression.  The making of new works by the criticism, imitation, revision, and rearrangement of existing material is the hallmark of literate culture in all the arts and sciences.  The First Amendment establishes not merely a series of independent doctrines, but a &ldquo;system of free expression.&rdquo; <i>See</i> Thomas I. Emerson, <i>The System of Freedom of Expression</i> (1970).  Our constitutional commitments to an &ldquo;uninhibited, robust, and wide-open&rdquo; public debate, <i>New York Times Co.</i> v. <i>Sullivan</i>, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), a &ldquo;marketplace of ideas,&rdquo; <i>Reno</i> v. <i>American Civil Liberties Union</i>, 521 U.S. 844, 885 (1997); <i>cf.</i> <i>Abrams</i> v. <i>United States</i>, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919), where there shall be no power to &ldquo;prescribe what shall be orthodox&rdquo; <i>West Virginia Board of Education</i> v. <i>Barnette</i>, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943), require us to view with great skepticism all restrictions on the formation and expression of ideas.  Laws tending to establish monopolies in the expression of ideas must pass the exacting scrutiny that protects our most fundamental freedoms.  The Copyright Clause does not exempt the legislation enacted under it from such scrutiny, but rather establishes principles that enable statutory monopolies and freedom of expression to coexist.  Of these, the principle of limitation in time is far from the least important.  By refusing to consider the effect of the instant legislation in the broader context of a Congressional policy of piecemeal, indefinite, wholesale extension of copyrights, and in relation to the purposes established by the Copyright Clause itself, the Court of Appeals failed in its duty to protect the invaluable interests of the system of free expression.
zh_CN: 第一修正案憎恶限制表达的虚无。从已有材料创作评论、模仿、修订和改编是所有艺术和科学文化的特点。第一修正案不仅仅是建立了一套独立的准则，而且也建立了一个 &ldquo;自由表达系统。&rdquo;<i>参看</i> Thomas I. Emerson，<i>自由表达系统</i> (1970)。我们的宪法保障 &ldquo;自由的、健壮的、开放的&rdquo; 公共辩论，<i>New York Times Co.</i> 诉 <i>Sullivan</i>，376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)，保障 &ldquo;思想的市场，&rdquo;<i>Reno</i> 诉 <i>American Civil Liberties Union</i>，521 U.S. 844, 885 (1997)；<i>cf.</i> <i>Abrams</i> 诉 <i>United States</i>，250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)，其不应有权力 &ldquo;规定什么是正统&rdquo; <i>West Virginia Board of Education</i> 诉 <i>Barnette</i>，319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)，这要求我们要带着极大的怀疑去审视所有对思想表达和形态的限制。有意建立思想表达垄断的法律也必须通过同样严格的审查以保护我们最重要的自由。版权条款的实施不但不能豁免这样的审查，反而是要建立启用法律垄断和自由表达共存的原则。其中，时效限制的原则远非不重要。逐步的、无限期的、整体的版权延伸和版权条款本身建立的目的是有关系的，上诉庭拒绝在更广泛意义下考虑国会政策的即时法律影响，说明它没能履行其保护自由表达系统的价值利益这一职责。

note: type: Content of: <div><h5>
en: A. Indefinite Extension of the Term of Monopoly on Existing Works of Authorship is Incompatible with Both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment
zh_CN: A. 对现有作品著作权的无限延期之垄断条款既不符合版权条例，也不符合第一修正案。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Precisely because the creation of exclusive rights in expressions inevitably involves some danger of the monopolization of ideas, it is crucial to the coexistence of copyright and the First Amendment that all exclusive rights over expressions are limited in time.  At some specific moment, all exclusionary rights must end.  Under our Constitution, the reversion of every work of authorship is irrevocably vested in the public.
zh_CN: 正是因为创建表达的排他权利不可避免地涉及思想的垄断，所以所有的思想排他权利在版权和第一修正案中都有时效非常关键。在某些特别时刻，所有的排他权利必须终结。根据宪法，每部作品著作权的回归无可置疑地由公众授予。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This reversion is not constitutionally optional.  In the context of patents, this Court has described the reversion as a &ldquo;condition&rdquo; that the work subject to temporary statutory monopoly will pass into the public domain upon the patent's expiration.  <i>Singer Mfg. Co.</i> v. <i>June Mfg. Co.</i>, 163 U.S. 169, 185 (1896).
zh_CN: 这个回归不是宪法的一个选项。对于专利，现法院认为回归是一个 &ldquo;条件&rdquo;，即专利作为临时法律垄断到期后将归于公有领域。<i>Singer Mfg. Co.</i> 诉 <i>June Mfg. Co.</i>，163 U.S. 169, 185 (1896)。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Notwithstanding this evident constitutional principle, the Court of Appeals held that Congress may create a perpetuity in copyrights so long as it does so sequentially, by repeatedly extending all existing copyrights for nominally &ldquo;limited&rdquo; terms.  This holding contradicts the spirit of both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment.  The Court of Appeals erroneously held, following its own precedent, <i>see</i> <i>Schnapper</i> v. <i>Foley</i>, 667 F.2d 102, 112 (1981), that the single phrase comprising the Copyright Clause, empowering Congress &ldquo;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,&rdquo; imposes no substantive limitation on Congress through its declaration of purpose.  But the Court of Appeals acknowledged, as it must, that this Court's cases show clearly that Congressional power is indeed limited by the Copyright Clause, and so its effort is bent to the disintegration of a single phrase of twenty-seven words, directed at showing that the first nine are somehow constitutionally irrelevant.
zh_CN: 尽管有此明明白白的宪法原则，上诉庭还是认为国会可以使版权永久，只要它连续地使用名义上 &ldquo;有限的&rdquo; 的条款重复扩展所有的版权即可。这种立场既和版权的精神也和第一修正案的精神相抵触。上诉庭错误地认为，根据它自己的判例，<i>参看</i> <i>Schnapper</i> 诉 <i>Foley</i>，667 F.2d 102, 112 (1981)，单个词语就构成版权条例，并让国会有权 &ldquo;促进科学和艺术的进步，通过保障作者和发明人对相关作品和发现有期限的排他权利，&rdquo;这样不会强加给国会显著的限制。但是上诉庭也承认，它必须承认，现法院的案例清楚地表明国会的权力确实受到版权条例的限制，因而其努力局限于上述单个词语的不完整性，其中头几个字简直和宪法毫不相关。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This Court first held in the <i>Trademark Cases</i>, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), and reaffirmed in <i>Feist, supra</i>, 499 U.S., at 346-47, that Congress cannot constitutionally dilute the requirement of originality, by extending copyright coverage to works of authorship that make use of expressions already in existence, or in which the author's effort in collection and arrangement of existing information does not establish that &ldquo;modicum of creativity&rdquo; the Constitution requires.  According to the Court of Appeals, however, the principle of originality emerges solely from the words &ldquo;Writing&rdquo; and &ldquo;Author,&rdquo; taking not the slightest support from the declaration of purpose that begins the Copyright Clause.
zh_CN: 现法院首先在 <i>商标案</i>，100 U.S. 82 (1879) 中认为，然后又在 <i>Feist, supra</i>，499 U.S.，at 346-47 中再次确认国会不能使用违宪手段减少对原创性的要求，即不能把版权延展到使用已有表达的作品，也就是说作者收集和整理已有信息不能形成宪法要求的 &ldquo;些许创新&rdquo;。不过，据上诉庭，原创仅决定于 &ldquo;文字&rdquo; 和 &ldquo;作者&rdquo;，丝毫不考虑版权条例开头声明的目的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The Copyright Clause is unique among the enumerations of legislative power in Article I, &#167;8 in containing a declaration of purpose; it alone &ldquo;describes both the objective which Congress may seek and the means to achieve it.&rdquo; <i>Goldstein</i> v. <i>California</i>, 412 U.S. 546, 555 (1973).  Adopting a reading of the clause that denies legal effect to the words the drafters specifically and atypically included is an implausible style of constitutional construction.
zh_CN: 版权条例在 Article I，&#167;8 所列举的法律权力中是独特的，因为它含有一个声明的目的；它是唯一&ldquo;既描述了国会可能追求的目标，也描述了达到目标的手段。&rdquo; <i>Goldstein</i> 诉 <i>California</i>，412 U.S. 546, 555 (1973)。选择一个否定起草者特别引入的措辞的法律效果是一个徒劳的宪法构造形式。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Even without reference to the beginning of the clause, however, this Court's prior opinions show that the Court of Appeals has misperceived the task of construction.  The Court of Appeals treats the words &ldquo;limited Times&rdquo; in purely formal terms, so that&mdash;after ten previous interlocking extensions beginning in 1962, holding substantially all works with otherwise-expiring copyrights out of the public domain for a generation&mdash;the CTEA's extension of existing terms for another twenty years raises no substantive constitutional question because the new twenty-year extension period is numerically definite.  The same formal, anti-contextual approach to the words would result, however, in the result rejected by this Court in <i>Feist</i>: telephone directories are undeniably &ldquo;writings&rdquo; in the same crabbed sense that the term extension contained in the CTEA is &ldquo;limited.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 不过，即使没有引用版权条例的开头，现法庭先前的意见表明上诉庭误解了构建的工作。上诉庭把 &ldquo;有限期&rdquo; 完全当作表面意义，以至于&mdash;&mdash;从 1962 年开始进行了 10 次延期之后，所有版权过期应当进入公有领域的一代作品&mdash;&mdash;被 CTEA 再延期 20 年也未能引发强烈的宪法质疑，因为 20 年延期从数字上看也是有限的。然而，对这些词语同样的表面而非场景的解读也会导致该法庭对 <i>Feist</i> 一案的拒绝：电话薄毫无疑问也是此意义下的 &ldquo;写作&rdquo;，也是 CTEA 延期里所述的该 &ldquo;有限期。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><h5>
en: B. The Fifth Amendment Prohibits Legislative Action Such as This With Respect to Physical Property Rights, and There Is No Constitutional Justification for Permitting What Cannot Be Done with Mere Property to be Done with Free Expression
zh_CN: B. 第五修正案禁止对实体财产权采取此类立法，而且允许对表达自由做的事而不允许对其他财产做没有宪法依据。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: On the logic of the Court of Appeals' holding, which is apparently supported in this Court by the Solicitor General, Congress could pass a statute shortening the term of existing copyrights, reallocating a large body of currently-covered works to the public domain.  If the statute simply provided that the term of copyright be reduced to fourteen years, according to the Court of Appeals, that would satisfy the requirement of &ldquo;limited Times,&rdquo; and there would be no occasion for the Courts to inquire into whether such a change promoted the progress of science and the useful arts, though copyright holders could well be expected to contend that such an alteration of the duration of existing copyrights deprived them of the benefit that the &ldquo;copyright bargain&rdquo; supposedly &ldquo;secures&rdquo; them.
zh_CN: 根据上诉庭的逻辑，该逻辑明显在现法院被总检察长支持，国会可以通过一个缩短现有版权期限的法典，并让目前大量尚受版权保护的作品进入公有领域。如果该法典直接把版权期限降低到 14 年，根据上诉庭，它就符合 &ldquo;有期限&rdquo; 的要求，现法院也没有机会讨论这个改变是否会促进科学和艺术，虽然版权持有者会努力争辩这种期限的改变剥夺了本应  &ldquo;保护&rdquo; 他们的 &ldquo;版权交易&rdquo; 带来的利益。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But the copyright bargain faces two ways: &ldquo;securing&rdquo; authors their limited monopoly in return for the reversion to the public.  Increasing the reversionary interest at the expense of the first estate is conceptually no different than increasing the copyright holder's monopoly at the expense of the reversionary interest, which is that of the whole society and the system of free expression.  Shrinking or eliminating the public domain in order to increase the benefit to the monopolists, whose works have already been created in reliance on the previous allocation of rights, neither promotes the progress of knowledge nor respects the critically-important free speech interest in the health of the public domain.<a id="tex2html3" href="#foot138"><strong>[3]</strong></a>
zh_CN: 但是版权交易有两面性：&ldquo;保护&rdquo; 作者有期限的垄断，作为回报保证作品回归公众。让作者牺牲利益来提高回报，在概念上和延长作者的版权而牺牲大众的回报没有不同，不过牺牲的是整个社会和自由表达系统。垄断者已经获得了前期给予的利益，为了提高垄断利益而减少公有领域既没有推动知识进步，也没能尊重言论自由对一个健康的公有领域的极端重要性。<a id="tex2html3" href="#foot138"><strong>[3]</strong></a>

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Nor would the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment permit such uncompensated legislative adjustment of the terms of interest in real property.  Copyright&mdash;not surprisingly in view of its common law origins&mdash;adopts an essentially familiar structure of &ldquo;estates&rdquo; in works of authorship, beginning with a conveyance for term of years or a life interest plus a term of years, with a reversion to the public domain.  This Court has held that legislative alteration of such estates that destroys or limits the reversionary interest in real property in order to achieve redistribution between private parties is &ldquo;public use&rdquo; within the meaning of the Takings Clause, and is constitutional if compensated.  <i>Hawaii Housing Authority</i> v. <i>Midkiff</i>, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).  But it has never been suggested that Congress or a state legislature could achieve a similarly vast wealth transfer to present lessees through the extension of the terms of all existing leases, extinguishing or indefinitely postponing the reversionary interest, without paying compensation.
zh_CN: 第五修正案的征用条款也不会允许这种对不动产利益毫无补偿的法律调整。版权&mdash;&mdash;毫不意外地从其普通法起源的角度来看&mdash;&mdash;对作品的著作权采纳了和 &ldquo;地产&rdquo; 类似的重要结构，开始是一个按年或按生命周期加年限的利益转换，然后就回归到公有领域。现法院认为对地产的合法变动，如果为了达成地产在私人之间的再分配而破坏或限制了地产的预期利益，那么是符合征用条款所说的 &ldquo;公共用途&rdquo;，如果给予补偿也是符合宪法的。<i>Hawaii Housing Authority</i> 诉 <i>Midkiff</i>，467 U.S. 229 (1984)。但是从来没有人提议国会或州立法能够达成对现有承租人同样的巨大财富转移，只是通过延长现有的租约，消灭或无限期推迟预期利益，而毫不补偿。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What the Fifth Amendment prohibits with respect to interference with existing rights in real property should not be permissible where the rights being destroyed by legislative changes in property rules are rights to the freedom of speech and publication.  The Court of Appeals dismissively viewed petitioners as seeking to enforce rights to use the copyrighted works of others.  239 F.3d, at 376.  On the contrary, petitioners claim only their constitutional entitlement to use the works that would have entered the public domain, as required by the law in effect at the time the particular statutory monopolies at issue were granted, had it not been for unconstitutional Congressional interference.
zh_CN: 第五修正案针对地产权所禁止的事情也不应该对言论自由和出版自由允许，这些法律改变所破坏的产权是言论和出版自由的权利。上诉庭轻率地认为上诉人寻求维护他人作品的版权。239 F.3d，at 376。恰恰相反，上诉人只是想要获得他们应得的、理应进入公有领域的作品的使用权，这些权利早在授予特定法律垄断时就已经有了法律效力，如果不是现在受到国会违宪干预的话。

note: type: Content of: <div><h4>
en: III. Particular Dangers of Abuse and Corruption Justify Strict Constitutional Scrutiny When the Term of Statutory Monopolies is Extended
zh_CN: III. 当法律垄断被延期时，滥用和腐败的特别危险需要严格的宪法审查

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: During the first century of our Republic, the term of copyright was extended once.  During the next seventy years, it was extended once more.  Since 1962, copyright terms have been extended regularly, in increments ranging from one year to twenty years, and the flow of US-copyrighted works into the public domain has nearly ceased.  The statute before this Court postpones rights in material protected by the First Amendment to any but the holders of statutory monopolies for an additional generation.
zh_CN: 在我们共和国的第一个世纪中，版权的概念扩展过一次。在随后的 70 年里，它又扩展了一次。自 1962 年起，版权一词就被周期性地扩展，扩展的期限从 1 年到 20 年不等，而美国版权作品向公有领域的流动几乎停滞。现法庭面前的法典把所有人受第一修正案保护的实质权利又推迟了一代人，而保护的只是法律性垄断的持有者。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: No pattern of legislation could more clearly indicate the presence of the very evils against which the Framers of the Constitution and their forebears contended, and which gave rise to the Copyright Clause and its requirement for &ldquo;limited Times.&rdquo; When our predecessors in the struggle for constitutional liberty perceived a danger from corruption in the grant of monopolies, the danger they apprehended was from the executive, which might use its power to grant such monopolies to raise money independent of the legislature.  In our time the risk is that the legislature, which is granted the power to create such monopolies by Article I, &#167;8, will use that power to benefit copyright holders at the expense of the public domain.  Such a purpose&mdash;to turn the system of free expression into a series of private fiefdoms for the benefit of monopolists, who may choose to rebate a small portion of the monopoly rents thus extracted from the population in the form of campaign contributions&mdash;is forbidden to Congress by the plain wording of the Copyright Clause and by the First Amendment.  The use of repeated interim extensions to achieve the effect of a perpetuity is not less dangerous than the single enactment that all parties concede would be unconstitutional.  On the contrary, such a legislative practice increases the dangers of corruption without reducing the harm to the public domain.
zh_CN: 没有其他法律能比宪法构造者及其先行者更清晰地指出他们所针对的罪恶，他们据此提出版权条款及其 &ldquo;限期&rdquo; 要求。当我们的先辈考虑宪法自由授予垄断的危险时，他们理解的危险是执行层面的危险，即使用可以授权垄断的法律敛财。在我们的时代，危险变成了由 Article I，&#167;8 授权的垄断会使用该权力让版权持有者通过损害公有领域而受益。这种目的&mdash;&mdash;让自由表达变成一系列让垄断获益的私人领域，垄断者也许会以政治献金的形式返还一小部分本属于公众的垄断利益&mdash;&mdash;被版权条例和第一修正案的明确文字禁止国会执行。通过重复性的延期达成永久的实质和一次性达到目的一样危险，都是违宪的。甚至，这种法律实践既增加了腐败的危险，又没有减少对公有领域的伤害。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Conclusion
zh_CN: 结论

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Perhaps the late Representative Bono did indeed believe that copyright should last forever.  That any legislator could hold that view suggests the degree of danger to a fundamental part of the system of free expression into which we have drifted.  This Court should hold that the extension of existing copyright terms in the CTEA violates the requirements of the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment.  The decision of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.
zh_CN: 也许已故议员 Bono 确实认为版权应该永远持续。任何持有这种看法的立法者请指出我们已经身陷其中的自由表达系统有多么危险。现法院理应判定 CTEA 的版权延伸条款违反版权要求和第一修正案。上诉庭的决定应该被驳回。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Respectfully submitted.
zh_CN: 敬上。

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="foot151" href="#tex2html1"><sup>1</sup></a> Counsel for both parties have consented to the filing of this brief, and those consents have been filed with the Clerk of this Court.  No counsel for either party had any role in authoring this brief, and no person other than the <i>amicus</i> and its counsel made any monetary contribution to its preparation and submission.
zh_CN: <a id="foot151" href="#tex2html1"><sup>1</sup></a>双方律师同意提交本概要，此同意意见由现法庭文员记录在册。双方律师均不是本概要作者，除 <i>amicus</i> 及其律师之外，没有其他人对此案的准备和提交提供资助。

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="foot152" href="#tex2html2"><sup>2</sup></a> The only amendment made was in the replacement of the phrase originally suggested by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, that monopolies be granted for a &ldquo;certain&rdquo; time.  <i>See</i> 3 <i>id.</i>, at 122.
zh_CN: <a id="foot152" href="#tex2html2"><sup>2</sup></a>仅有一处修改，即原本由南卡罗莱那州 Charles Pinckney 建议的词句被替换为，授予垄断一个 &ldquo;特定&rdquo; 时间。<i>See</i> 3 <i>id.</i>，at 122。

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a id="foot138" href="#tex2html3"><sup>3</sup></a> The Court of Appeals minimized the importance of the impoverishment of the public domain when it maintained that &ldquo;[p]reserving access to works that would otherwise disappear&mdash;not enter the public domain but disappear&mdash;&lsquo;promotes Progress&rsquo; as surely as does stimulating the creation of new works.&rdquo; 239 F.3d, at 379.  This is an apparent reference to claims made by copyright holders in the legislative process that certain classes of works, particularly films, would not be physically preserved unless the copyright monopoly were extended.  It is sufficient to point out that such a principle for the award of copyright monopolies conflicts with the constitutionally mandated requirement of originality: Congress cannot elect to preserve books, films, or music by conveying to the conservator a statutory monopoly of copying and distribution lasting decades.
zh_CN: <a id="foot138" href="#tex2html3"><sup>3</sup></a>上诉法院在极力降低公有领域贫困化的重要性，当它坚持认为 &ldquo;保护即将消失的作品&mdash;&mdash;不是进入公有领域而是消失&mdash;&mdash;&lsquo;就是推动进步&rsquo;和激励创作新作品一样确信。&rdquo; 239 F.3d, at 379. 这明显是引用版权所有者在法律程序中的诉求：某些作品，尤其是电影作品，如果不做版权延期就不会被保留。应当指出，这种授予版权垄断的原则违背宪法对原创的法律要求：国会不能选择授予监护人数十年复制和分发的垄断权来保护书籍、电影或音乐。

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes. type: Content of: <div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*
zh_CN: <h3>译注</h3>
    <ol>
    <li id="TransNote1">Black Beauty，《黑骏马》，是一本书。该句前面有“Blackacre”，泛指法律意义的不动产。</li>
    </ol>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
zh_CN: 请将对FSF&amp;GNU的一般询问发送到<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>。还有一些其他联系FSF的<a href="/contact/">方式</a>。关于链接错误和&rdquo;其他更正或建议&ldquo;请发信到<a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>。

note: TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, replace it with the translation of these two: We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection. Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard to <a hr
en: Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.
zh_CN: 我们尽最大努力来提供精准和高质量的翻译，但难免会存在错误和不足。如果您在这方面有评论或一般性的建议，请发送至 <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>。</p><p>关于进行协调与提交翻译的更多信息参见 <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">《译者指南》</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the copyright notice, are preserved.
zh_CN: 本文允许在任何媒体上进行全文逐字复制和分发，前提是保留此声明。

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits. type: Content of: <div><div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*
zh_CN: <b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team" href="//savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/">&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2023。

note: timestamp start type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Updated:
zh_CN: 最后更新：
