????“不作惡。”

????這是經常被引用的谷歌公司( Google)座右銘。但近些年來，越來越多的人認為這家總部位于加州山景城的高科技公司的某些行為與這種理念相抵觸。總之，無論是被控抄襲【蘋果公司( Apple)發(fā)出的這項指控直指谷歌開發(fā)的安卓移動操作系統(tǒng)(Android)】、感覺遲鈍（許多虔誠的用戶指責谷歌近些年來關閉了不少服務），還是令人毛骨悚然（廣告過于個性化，是不是大家都有此感受？），這家公司的一世英名已經遭受重創(chuàng)。

????近日，這家科技巨頭終于扳回一城。

????一位聯邦法官已經駁回了一項曠日持久，發(fā)軔于2005年的版權侵權訴訟。美國作家協(xié)會(The Authors Guild)聲稱，谷歌公司掃描受版權保護書籍——這僅僅是谷歌自2004年以來掃描的逾2,000萬種圖書的一部分——侵犯了著作權人的版權，因為這家營利性公司沒有事先獲得每位權利持有人的許可，就上傳文本圖像，從而使得全球用戶通過該公司備受歡迎的搜索引擎就可任意獲取相關內容片段。

????有待解決的是“公平使用”這一概念。根據這個灰色的法律地帶，人們可以出于一些狹窄的理由（教育、批評或評論、戲仿等）合法復制不被他們擁有的內容。比如，何為評論，何為再版，就是一個引發(fā)激烈爭論的問題。

????美國巡回法院華裔法官陳卓光在紐約駁回了作家協(xié)會的申訴，并做出了有利于谷歌公司的即決判決。

????“在我看來，谷歌圖書( Google Books)提供了意義重大的公共利益，”陳卓光法官在判決書中寫道。“這項計劃有助于推動藝術和科學的進步，同時充分尊重了作者和其他創(chuàng)造性人才的權利，它并沒有對著作權人的權利產生不利影響。它已成為一個非常寶貴的研究工具，可以幫助學生、教師、圖書管理員和其他人更有效地識別和查找圖書。它讓學者首次獲得了對數以百萬計書籍進行全文檢索的能力。它有助于圖書的保存，尤其值得指出的是，它讓那些被遺忘在圖書館幽深之處的絕版舊書獲得了全新的生命。它為那些無法獲得印刷品，身處邊遠或圖書館服務欠發(fā)達地區(qū)的人們提供了一條讀書捷徑。它生成了新的受眾，為圖書作者和出版社創(chuàng)造了新的收入源泉。事實上，谷歌圖書計劃對社會的方方面面都有利。”

????這是否意味著你無需付錢，就能夠在谷歌圖書上閱讀《五十度灰》(Fifty Shades of Grey)的全部內容？不完全是。但這項裁決可以幫助一個其他方面依然云里霧里的法律領域確立一定的清晰度。“公平使用”原則的存在，正是為了推動社會的創(chuàng)造力——一個由一家硅谷商業(yè)企業(yè)執(zhí)牛耳的項目，令人驚訝地催生出了一個如此高尚的意外后果。

????換句話說，谷歌掃描圖書并非邪惡之舉。(財富中文網)

????譯者：葉寒

????"Don't be evil."

????That's the oft-cited informal corporate motto of Google, the Mountain View, Calif.-based technology company whose perception in recent years has run afoul of that idea. Whether through accusations of plagiarism (by Apple, directed at Google's mobile operating system, Android), insensitivity (by dedicated users of the many services it has shuttered over the years) or creepiness (too-personalized advertisements, anyone?), the company's once-sterling reputation has taken a beating.

????Today, score one for the big G.

????A federal judge has dismissed a long-running copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Google (GOOG) in 2005. The Authors Guild argued that Google's actions scanning copyrighted books -- a subset of the more than 20 million tomes it has scanned since 2004 -- infringed on those copyrights, because the for-profit company did not request permission by each individual rights holder before uploading images of the texts and making snippets of that content available on its popular search engine.

????At issue is the concept of "fair use," a legal gray area that allows people to legally reproduce content they don't own for a number of narrow reasons: education, criticism or commentary, parody, and so forth. What is defined as commentary and what is merely republication, for example, is a matter of (rather heated) debate.

????U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin in New York rejected the Guild's argument, granting Google's motion for summary judgment.

????"In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits," Chin wrote. "It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books. It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and remote or underserved populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits."

????Does that mean you'll be able to read Fifty Shades of Grey cover-to-cover on Google Books without ponying up some dough? Not quite. But the decision helps to establish some clarity in an otherwise still foggy area of the law. The fair use doctrine exists to grease the skids of societal creativity -- a surprisingly noble side effect for a project helmed by a commercial enterprise in Silicon Valley.

????In other words: not evil.