????電子前沿基金會（Electronic Frontier Foundation，EFF）是美國在數碼版權方面最知名的非營利組織。如果我告訴你，這個組織去年向外披露，它從谷歌公司（Google）那里獲得了整整100萬美元的資助——大約是該組織總收入的17%，有些人可能會大驚失色。因為電子前沿基金會稱自己是一個“由會員資助”的組織。而且像大多數非營利組織一樣，它也很珍惜身份獨立、不參與商業爭端和關注公眾利益的光環和名聲。

????事實上，谷歌去年的確把100萬美元轉到了電子前沿基金會的戶頭上。這筆錢并不屬于企業捐贈，電子前沿基金會也不必把它報告成企業捐贈。而且假如電子前沿基金會今年又從Facebook那里獲得了100萬美元的話，這筆錢也同樣不必報告成企業捐贈——而且Facebook也正打算掏這筆錢。這是因為谷歌和Facebook都成了集體訴訟案的被告，這兩筆錢是奉法院之命支付的調解費。

????讀者可能會想：“這筆錢當然不是捐贈！而且恰恰相反，這筆錢是因為有人針對他們提起訴訟，因此在法院強制下被迫支付給對方的費用。”其實這也不是故事的全貌。電子前沿基金會在相關案件的訴訟上并沒有扮演任何角色，是谷歌和Facebook自己選擇了EFF作為調解費的受益人。

????這筆一半是罰款、一半是自愿捐贈性質的費用被稱為“近似罰金”（cy presawards，cy pres一詞來自法語，意為“近似合理”——譯注）。這種懲罰機制的理論是這樣的：在判決中，原告律師與被告均同意，把賠償款支付給實際受到侵害者沒有可行性，因為分到每名受侵害者頭上的金額太小了，無法保證這筆費用的分配。因此，原、被告均同意不向受侵害者群體做出賠償，而是向慈善機構支付一定數額的金錢，以此作為次優選擇。因為慈善機構間接地通過與本案有關的某些方式，促進了受侵害者群體的相關利益。

????谷歌和Facebook之所以要支付這筆錢，就是因為有人控告這兩家公司涉嫌侵犯了用戶的隱私權。在谷歌一案中，谷歌涉嫌在2010年2月布Google Buzz社交網絡時暴露了用戶的電子郵件。而Facebook則涉嫌在2011年2月推出所謂的“贊助故事”廣告時，在沒有獲得用戶明確許可的情況下，利用了用戶（包括未成年人）的身份信息用于廣告用途。在這兩起官司中，還有21個其他的非營利機構也獲得了、或即將或得近似罰金。不過電子前沿基金會仍然是其中最大的贏家，獨自獲得了1,610萬美元罰金中的12%。（Google Buzz一案在2011年5月已塵埃落定，但Facebook一案直到今年6月才提交法庭，而且現在仍在受到不同意見者的挑戰。）

????兩起案件的原、被告雙方均認為，向電子前沿基金會支付近似罰金是合理的，因為數碼隱私問題恰好是這個基金會監督的問題之一。而且電子前沿基金會因為隱私和侵權問題斥責谷歌與Facebook的次數也著實不少了（雖說它從來沒有針對這兩家公司提起過訴訟），另外它也一直在聲援網絡隱私立法，而且它支持的隱私政策也一向是谷歌和Facebook所反對的。

????然而與此同時，在用戶生成的侵權內容方面（比如盜版電影、照片或音樂），電子前沿基金會的態度通常與谷歌和Facebook是一致的，都不贊成版權所有人向傳播方追究連帶責任。可能就是因為這些原因，谷歌曾在2010年向電子前沿基金會純粹自愿地捐贈了2.5萬美金，在2011年又捐贈了1.8萬美金。

????事實上，在谷歌與Facebook這兩起案件中，至少一半以上獲得近似罰金的非營利機構今年可能都或多或少地從谷歌和Facebook那里獲得過一些捐贈，其中有些機構可能與這兩家公司沒有任何官司糾葛。比如民主與科技中心（the Center for Democracy and Technology，CDT）去年從Google Buzz一案中獲得了50萬美元的近似罰金，前年則從谷歌那里獲得了34萬美元的自愿捐助。現在它還有望從Facebook那里獲得100萬美元的近似罰金，而Facebook自從2009年起就是民主與科技中心在電子商務領域最大的捐助人之一。與此類似，斯坦福大學（Stanford University）互聯網與社會中心（the Center for Internet and Society，CIS）也從Google Buzz一案中獲得了50萬美元的近似罰金，前年還從谷歌那里獲得了40萬美元的自愿捐贈（相當于當年CIS總收入的51%）。今年Facebook一案如果獲批，CIS也將獲得60萬美元的近似罰金。

????在科技領域的版權問題上，電子前沿基金會、民主與科技中心和斯坦福大學的互聯網與社會中心等組織都站在同一陣線上，與版權持有人展開混戰。比如這三家非營利性機構都支持今年1月針對《禁止網絡盜版法案》的斷網抗議活動，而谷歌和Facebook也都反對這個法案。此外，在最近涉及谷歌的兩起訴訟中，電子前沿基金會和民主與科技中心也分別向法庭遞交了非當事人陳述意見，對谷歌表示支持。其中第一起訴訟是維亞康姆公司（Viacom）起訴谷歌的視頻網站YouTube涉嫌侵犯版權；另一起是由語言課程公司Rosetta Stone狀告谷歌拍賣其他公司的商標作為付費搜索的關鍵詞，并且允許他人利用它的商標做廣告。

????如果法院要求某個中立的個人向一家堅持與盜版侵權行為做斗爭的慈善機構支付近似罰金的話，那么他的第一選擇可能會是一家被谷歌和Facebook案中的訴訟各方徹底忽略了的機構——電子隱私信息中心（the Electronic Privacy Information Center，EPIC）。

????與谷歌和Facebook案中全部22個近似罰金的受益機構不同的是，電子隱私信息中心曾真刀真槍地針對谷歌和Facebook向美國聯邦貿易委員會（the U.S. Federal Trade Commission）提起過訴訟，狀告Google Buzz的侵權行為，以及Facebook涉嫌在未經用戶許可的情況下，將用戶身份信息用于廣告用途等行為。正是在電子隱私信息中心的檢舉下，聯盟貿易委員會針對兩家公司采取了強制執行措施，兩起訴訟最終以賠款和解告終。

????If the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the nation's preeminent digital rights nonprofit, had disclosed last year that it received a cool $1 million gift from Google -- about 17% of its total revenue -- some eyebrows might have been raised. The group typically describes itself as "member-supported" and, like most nonprofits, it treasures its above-the-commercial-fray, public-interest-group aura and reputation for independence.

????In fact, Google (GOOG) did transfer $1 million to the EFF last year, but the money did not have to be, and wasn't, reported as a corporate donation. And if, as currently planned, the EFF receives another $1 million this year from Facebook (FB), it won't have to report that as a donation either. That's because both transfers are formally court-ordered outlays being paid by those companies to settle class-action suits.

????"Well, of course those aren't donations!" the reader might interject. "They're the diametric opposite: involuntary, judicially mandated payments forced upon them by an adversary!" That's not the whole story either. These payments to the EFF are being made in suits the EFF played no role in bringing, and the defendants themselves -- Google and Facebook, in these instances -- helped select EFF to be their beneficiary.

????These weird, hybridized outlays -- part punitive fine, part voluntary donation -- are called cy presawards, meaning "as close as possible" (from the old Norman, cy pres comme possible). The theory behind them goes like this: In settling, the plaintiffs lawyers and the defendants agreed that awarding damages to actual class members would be impractical, because the sums owed each would be so tiny as to not warrant the expense of distribution. Accordingly, the parties agreed to pay the class nothing, but to pay a sum instead to charities that would serve as the next best thing, because the charities would theoretically promote the interests of class members in some indirect fashion pertinent to the lawsuit.

????These two awards to the EFF, for instance, stem from suits that alleged that Google and Facebook each violated their customers' privacy rights -- in Google's case, by exposing users' email contacts during its botched launch of its Google Buzz social network in February 2010 and, in Facebook's, by exploiting users' (including minors') identities and likenesses without express permission in its so-called "Sponsored Stories" ads in January 2011. In these two cases 21 other nonprofits also received, or stand to receive, money, though the EFF would be the biggest winner, taking in about 12% of the total $16.1 million doled out. (While the Google Buzz settlement was approved in May 2011, the Sponsored Stories settlement was just proposed in June, and is still being challenged by dissenters.)

????Giving cy pres money to the EFF makes sense, the parties in each case have argued, because digital privacy issues are one of the subjects the EFF monitors. It has not infrequently scolded (though never sued) Google and Facebook for privacy glitches and intrusions, and has advocated privacy legislation and policies that those companies oppose.

????At the same time, the EFF is often an ally of Google and Facebook when it comes to staving off liability to rights holders over user-generated infringing content, like pirated movies, photos, or music. Perhaps for these reasons, for instance, Google gave EFF about $25,000 in conventional, purely voluntary donations in 2010, and about $18,000 more in 2011.

????In fact, at least half of the cy pres recipients in these cases would very likely be getting at least some donations from Google or Facebook this year, whether or not any suit had ever been lodged against them. For instance, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which got $500,000 from the Google Buzz cy pres award in 2011, received $340,000 in voluntary contributions from Google the year before. It's now slated to receive $1 million from the proposed Facebook award, though Facebook has been listed as one of CDT's leading e-commerce benefactors since at least 2009. Similarly, the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford (CIS), which received $500,000 from the Google Buzz award, had collected $400,000 in voluntary contributions from Google the year before (which amounted to 51% of CIS's total revenue that year). This year CIS will collect $600,000 from Facebook's Sponsored Stories settlement, if approved.

????The EFF, CDT, and Stanford's CIS all reliably line up on the tech sector side in scrimmages with copyright holders. All three supported, for instance, the January Internet blackout protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act -- legislation opposed by both Google and Facebook. EFF and CDT also each submitted amicus briefs supporting Google in its two most important recent litigations: Viacom's suit against Google's YouTube unit for copyright infringement, and a suit by Rosetta Stone, the language course company, challenging Google's practices of auctioning off other companies' trademarks for use as paid-search keywords and allowing them to be used in ad text as well.

????Now if some neutral individual had been tasked with awarding money to a charity that was single mindedly devoted to fighting precisely the sorts of wrongs alleged in the Google Buzz and Sponsored Stories class actions, his first choice would probably have been one that the settling parties in each case passed over entirely: the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

????Unlike any of the 22 cy pres recipients jointly proposed by the parties in the two cases, EPIC actually filed complaints against Google and Facebook with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over the Google Buzz launch and Facebook's use of members' identities and likenesses in ad campaigns without permission. Prompted by EPIC's complaints, the FTC brought enforcement actions against each company which culminated in consent decrees.