【Native Speaker每日综合训练】 【38-D】 一周精选 - Copyright

AceJ

本期选文来自本期选文来自 小蘑菇开始打怪 的38-15越障部分，这篇文章不长，但要充分理解却并不是那么容易，因为涉及到一些背景知识。在解读中难免会有错误，欢迎大家多多指出并补充。

原文链接：http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-910348-1-1.html

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Is Even Worse Than You Think


Recently, the White House made about 114,000 new friends by agreeing that it should be legal to unlock your cellphone. In a response to a We the People petition, a White House adviser wrote that the Obama administration would work to address a recent decision by the librarian of Congress that made unlocking your cellphone illegal under the anti-circumvention measures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.


The unlocking furor is just the latest example of popular opposition to the DMCA’s dreaded anti-circumvention measures. The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently issued a report arguing that over the last 15 years, the DMCA has impeded scientific research, innovation, fair use, and more. But among the DMCA’s many flaws is a significant one of which most people aren’t aware: For more than a decade, the act has imposed a barrier to access for people with disabilities. It hinders access to books, movies, and television shows by making the development, distribution, and use of cutting-edge accessibility technology illegal.


一，二两段可以放在一起做为文章的开头，因为第一段是故事背景，第二段才提出了核心观点。由于涉及到一些法律词汇和背景知识，所以这两段不是那么容易理解滴
第一段，最近白宫交了一些新朋友，因为它同意必须要合法地解锁手机。在给全球信访办的情愿回应中，一位白宫顾问写到白宫将会公布一个近期由国会图书馆做出的决定，规定在千禧年数字版权法反规避条款下解锁手机是非法的。
"We the People"，源自于美国联邦宪法序言, 美国总统奥巴马于2011年9月1日所推行的一个请愿网站的名字也叫“We the people”。2011年9月1日，美国白宫宣布白宫官网将开设一项“网络问政”的新功能，美国公民可在一个名为“We the people”的白宫子网页上，根据自己关心的重要议题提交请愿书，参政问政。白宫请愿网平台为美国人提供了一个创造、分享和签名请愿的新途径，美国人可以通过这个平台传达自己对政府政策和行为的意见与建议。请愿可针对美国面临的任何重大问题，满足一定条件后奥巴马政府必须回应。但是开通之后，该网站收到来自许多非美国事物的内容，被戏称为:全球信访办。（出处：百度百科）

谢谢Going的提问，我认为第一段最后一句话应该没有用到倒装，我的理解是这样的

a White House adviser wrote that the Obama administration would work to address a recent decision by the librarian of Congress that made unlocking your cellphone illegal under the anti-circumvention measures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

奥巴马政府（主）将会work to address（谓）一个近期的决定（宾），这个决定是来自国会图书馆，决定使得在DMCA反规避条款下，unlocking cellphone是非法的。Decision后面的by...that made...均是修饰decision的

再补充一下这里的address的意思，我认为不是我们常用的 make a normal speech的意思，而是think about a problem or a situation and decide how you are going to deal with it


第二段，解锁风波只是人们最近反对DMCA反规避条款的事件之一。EFF则在报告中指出DMCA在过去15年终阻碍了科学研究，创新等。CMDA众多有许多没有被人们察觉的错误，其中重要的一个：十多年中，法案给残疾人士强加了一道障碍，因为它使得前段的accessibility技术的发展，传播和使用变成了非法。


Digital Millennium Copyright Act，《美国数字千禧版权法》是数字化时代网络技术条件下著作权保护的有效尝试，其将一般人列入侵权对象，并在刑事、民事责任上处以重罚，为著作权人作品的网上传播提供强有力的保护。但《美国数字千禧版权法》并未解决网络上著作权的全部问题，仍有许多方面需要完善。
1、网络平台上的作品应如何重新界定，网络作品的著作权与传统作品著作权的区别，网络著作权侵权管辖，等等。
2、《美国数字千禧版权法》本身的规定，也带来了一系列的问题。尤其是“禁止破坏著作权之保护体系”之规定，是否会成为著作权人禁止他人对自己作品进行研究，实现技术垄断的工具。
3、《美国数字千禧版权法》也使得ISP应著作权人要求不得不删除网民对他人作品的评论或讨论，这是否构成对个人自由的挑战。DMCA给研究套上紧箍咒。（出处：百度百科）


了解了什么是DMCA后，那么DMCA反规避条款又是什么呢？我的理解是主要作用于一些企图绕过DMCA的行为，因为技术的发展日新月异，1998年的立法不可能包括所有数字内容版权形式，而修改立法又要一个很长的过程，所以法案中有这么一个武器。（纯属个人理解，如果有错误，请同学们指正）对于这个反规避条款，国会图书馆有一个豁免权，后文有提到。


Making creative works accessible often involves transforming content from one medium to another—such as adapting the audio of a television show to closed captions to make it accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Copyright law ordinarily vests authors of creative works with the exclusive right to create adaptations, such as translations to foreign languages. But making works accessible to people with disabilities is arguably exempt from copyright law under the fair use doctrine and other laws like the Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Act. Congress, federal courts, the U.S. Copyright Office, and even the World Intellectual Property Organization have begun to recognize that it’s bad policy to block efforts to create accessible versions of copyrighted works.


At least, that’s the case with physical and analog media. But publishers, video programmers, and other copyright owners lock down digital content with digital rights management technology designed to limit users’ ability to access, copy, and adapt copyrighted works to specific circumstances. And copyright owners frequently fail to account for the need to adapt DRM-encumbered works to make them accessible to people with disabilities. For example, e-books often include DRM technology that prevents people who are blind or visually impaired from running e-books that they have lawfully purchased through a text-to-speech converter that reads the books aloud.


Similarly, Internet-distributed video and DVD and Blu-ray discs include DRM features that prevent researchers from developing advanced closed captioning and video description technologies that make movies and television shows accessible. (For example, some Internet-delivered videos don't include closed captions at all, and subtitles on DVD and Blu-ray discs can be incomplete, riddled with errors, or so badly formatted that they can't be read.)


在了解了一，二段的文章背景和作者核心观点后，第3，4，5段的意思就豁然开朗了。这三段就是详细描述了DMCA是如何阻碍了残疾人士享受电子内容，包括电视剧，电影，电子书，广播等各种形式。举个例子，听力障碍或聋人在看电视剧时必须要把音频转换成隐藏字幕（closed captions），但这一改编的权利在DMCA的规定下只有作者才有，这就阻碍了带隐藏字幕的影视作品的大量普及。尽管这种改编已经得到了豁免权，但无疑这一政策是不利的。后文还有谈到DRM - digital rights management 带来的负面影响，大致意思相同，就不累赘。


Bypassing this DRM technology is often trivial from a technical perspective. But the DMCA makes it illegal—even if the person bypassing DRM is doing so for a non-infringing use like making it accessible to people with disabilities. If you want to get around the DMCA, there is no fair use; instead, you must petition the librarian of Congress for a special exemption to circumvent a class of works, such as e-books. The proceeding to consider exemption petitions, known as the “triennial review,” takes place only once every three years and requires petitioners to navigate a complex bureaucratic process, satisfy an incredibly high burden of proof, invest months of effort, and overcome opposition from copyright lobbying groups with nearly bottomless resources. It’s no wonder the vast majority of exemption petitions are denied.


Even if a petitioner can successfully make a case for an exemption, a separate part of the DMCA still bars her from distributing accessibility technology with circumvention components to people with disabilities. Worse, the exemption will last for only three years, after which it will expire unless the petitioner successfully renews it. Making the same case over and over again isn’t just a waste of time and resources—it puts at risk any progress toward accessibility achieved under the previously granted exemption, which can be wiped away by the whim of the librarian of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office. (The librarian’s October decision to ban cellphone unlocking after exempting it for nearly six years is a prime example of such a whim.)


最后两段可以看出作者论述的严谨性。说了这么多DMCA的不好，肯定有人会反驳你不会用豁免权嘛。所以第6，7段就专门论述了想要petition exemption是多么的困难和复杂。
第6段，从技术层面绕过DRM是很容易的，但违反了DMCA。所以只能申请豁免权，但豁免规则3年才修改一次，你不仅要走复杂的流程，提供一大堆证据，耗费数月，还要跟各种资源无限的版权说客较量，结果自然是能通过的极其少数。
第7段，即便是你可以拿到豁免权（多么完美的argument结构，让步式）DMCA还有一个单独的部分依旧可以限制你利用规避条款来向残障人士传播。更糟糕的是，有效期只有3年，到期后要全部从头再来一遍。这耗费的不仅仅是时间和金钱，更会更在豁免期间所取得的accessibility进展带来极大风险，因为一旦没有再次得到豁免，这些进展随时会被国会图书馆和美国版权局wipe away.


Reply Your Answer to Check analysis


本期精选就到这里啦，希望大家喜欢，有什么问题，给我留言~

疏离无罪

顶~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

没头脑太高兴

谢谢楼主

vsetteacher

thanks for sharing

czgygz

打卡~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·
~

viennall

谢谢分享~~~~~~

jennyifan

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

psychoarya

考完试了就实习了 今天重新开始！！

醒醒Shine

又到精华帖了=）
中午午饭学习。

alyshell

ddddddddddddddd