翻译问题

[Hagb]

“对版权的错误解读——一系列错误”中有一处翻译有点奇怪（有疑问的地方我已经粗体了）（其原文也有点奇怪）：
译文：

从实践角度讲，这种“平衡”概念的结果是逆转了在版权法中做出更改所需正当理由的负担。版权交易将这种负担置于出版商一方，他们需要说服读者转让部分自由。而平衡概念逆转了这种负担，实事求是地说，由于对于出版商将会通过额外的特权得到好处这一点没有异议。除非这对读者造成的伤害能够被证实，并且这种伤害大到了已经超出读者所能得到的好处的程度，我们将会得出结论：出版商被赋予了它们要求的几乎所有特权。

原文：

As a practical matter, the consequence of the ''balance''
concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in
copyright law. The copyright bargain places the burden on the
publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The
concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking, because
there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from
additional privilege. Unless harm to the readers can be proved,
sufficient to ''outweigh'' this benefit, we are led to
conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they
request.

这里有一个问题：“this benefit”是指出版商的还是读者的，这句话表达的是什么意思？

[tonghuix]

@nadebula 能否帮忙解释一下？

[tonghuix]

我个人感觉 “this benefit” 应该是指对读者的，因为这句的前半句是讲对读者，所以推测来看应该也是对读者的。

[Hagb]

@tonghuix 但是不管“this benefit”是指对读者的还是对出版商的，在这句话里都显得很奇怪吧（我是指整句话的意思都会很奇怪）

[tonghuix]

仔细再读了读，感觉这种好处是不是指的出版商的？

[Hagb]

@tonghuix @nadebula 我理了一下，我认为可能是这样的：
“this benefit”是指读者的，但后面的一些翻译也需要改改
“are entitled to ...”是“（以那些这种”平衡“概念来看）有权（或者说有资格）”，而不是“被赋予了”。
以下是我理解的整句话的意思：
"除非对读者造成的伤害能被证实大到超出了读者的利益，否则我们（以这种“平衡”概念）就会得出这样的结论：出版商有资格获得它们要求的几乎所有特权。"

[tonghuix]

这个修改了么？

[Hagb]

@tonghuix 没有……

[tonghuix]

我重新看了一下，个人很赞同你后来的理解

[Hagb]

[email protected] 处 Thérèse 的回复：

In Misinterpreting Copyright—A Seriesof Errors:

As a practical matter, the consequence of the ''balance''
concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in
copyright law. The copyright bargain places the burden on the
publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The
concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking, because
there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from
additional privilege. Unless harm to the readers can be proved,
sufficient to ''outweigh'' this benefit, we are led to conclude that
the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they request.
What is "this benefit"? Is it readers' or publishers'?

This is the publisher's benefit. The idea is that in order to
limit publishers' privileges, you would need to prove that these
privileges (which benefit publishers only) are harming readers.

[Hagb]

好奇怪，不太明白这里面的逻辑…我想再复封邮件去问问

[Hagb]

In Misinterpreting Copyright—A Seriesof Errors:

As a practical matter, the consequence of the ''balance''
concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in
copyright law. The copyright bargain places the burden on the
publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The
concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking,
because there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit
from additional privilege. Unless harm to the readers can be proved,
sufficient to ''outweigh'' this benefit, we are led to conclude that
the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they request.
What is "this benefit"? Is it readers' or publishers'?

This is the publisher's benefit. The idea is that in order to
limit publishers' privileges, you would need to prove that these
privileges (which benefit publishers only) are harming readers.

"The benefit" meaning the publishers' benefit, I don't understand why
"unless harm to the readers can be proved, sufficient to 'outweigh'
this benefit, we are led to conclude that the publishers are entitled
to almost any privilege they request".
I had thought that "the benefit" is readers'.

I think this part has to do with the lobbying publishers have been
doing to change the copyright law.

They "gave justifications" to convince congressmen and citizen that
extending the copyright would be good for society. But while these
extensions brought publishers financial benefits, more works were
kept out of the public domain, which is harmful for the readers. So
the system is completely off-balance. Unless readers have a chance to
prove that copyright extension is more harmful for them than it is
beneficial for the publishers (in other words, unless the lobbying is
reversed), publishers will keep getting any privileges they ask for.

I agree that the wording isn't very clear.

[tonghuix]

所以说这个到底还是原文写的不清楚啊！

[tonghuix]

希望可以在 2019.1 之前解决这个问题，我倾向于保持原译文，如何？

[Hagb]

我也不知道怎么处理。原译文、我一开始的理解、gnu 方面的回复，都不一样……

[tonghuix]

既然这样就先保留原译文吧。

[Hagb]

建议先别 close。毕竟还没解决。