【文章标题】：EFF to Courts: Don’t Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
【文章标题】：电子前哨基金会告诫法院：别因AI炒作改写版权法
【文章正文】：
The history of technology is rife with copyright panics.
科技发展史上充斥着版权恐慌。
In the 1980s, major rightsholders ran to Congress and the courts, claiming that videotape recorders (VTR) were “to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”
1980年代，主要权利持有人奔走于国会和法院之间，声称录像机（VTR）“对美国电影制片人和公众的危害，就像波士顿扼杀者之于独居女性”。
Then, the Supreme Court declined to embrace the hype, noting that the VTR was capable of all kinds of non-infringing uses, like time-shifting and cautioning courts to avoid rewriting copyright law in response to new technologies.
当时最高法院拒绝被炒作裹挟，指出录像机具有多种非侵权用途（如时移功能），并告诫法院不要因新技术而改写版权法。
We believe that courts now should be similarly wary about the hype surrounding AI.
我们认为，如今法院对AI炒作也应保持同等警惕。
Hollywood’s hyperbole has echoed that of composer John Phillip Sousa, who claimed in 1906 that the player piano and the gramophone would destroy music composition; portrait artists who feared the camera would replace the paintbrush.
好莱坞的夸张论调与作曲家约翰·菲利普·苏萨如出一辙——他在1906年宣称自动钢琴和留声机会摧毁音乐创作；肖像画家也曾恐惧相机会取代画笔。
None of these things happened.
这些预言无一成真。
Cameras, for example, sparked a resurgence of portraiture and, by making it possible for more people to create images, led to unexpected developments—like the rise of photojournalism.
以相机为例，它反而催生了肖像艺术的复兴，并通过降低图像创作门槛，带来了新闻摄影崛起等意外发展。
New markets, new ideas, and new creators are actually what copyright is supposed to promote, not restrict.
版权制度本应促进新市场、新理念和新创作者的出现，而非限制。
Using copyright to lock in existing gatekeepers and massive rightsholders’ profits helps neither the public nor individual artists.
利用版权维护现有守门人和大型权利持有者的利益，既无益公众，也无助个体艺术家。
Generative AI has sparked the latest wave of anxiety and with it a massive wave of litigation.
生成式AI引发了最新一轮焦虑，随之而来的是诉讼浪潮。
In multiple cases around the U.S. and the world, rightsholders are asking courts to do precisely what the Supreme Court warned against: dramatically expand copyright protections based in substantial part on hyperbole and speculation.
在全美及全球多起案件中，权利持有人正要求法院做出最高法院曾警告的行为：主要基于夸张言论和猜测大幅扩张版权保护范围。
They should decline to do so.
法院理应拒绝。
Copyright owners claim that unless courts abandon 300-year-old copyright principles—and give rightsholders the power to control non-infringing works created by others—an imagined flood of AI-generated works will devastate creative markets.
版权所有者声称，除非法院抛弃沿袭300年的版权原则——赋予权利持有人控制他人非侵权作品的权利——否则臆想中泛滥的AI生成作品将摧毁创意市场。
Under this “market dilution” theory, building generative AI tools cannot be fair use because those tools might be encourage the proliferation of competing works.
根据这种”市场稀释”理论，开发生成式AI工具不构成合理使用，因其可能助长竞争作品激增。
As EFF has explained to the courts in multiple amicus briefs in Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC and In re Mosaic LLM Litigation, that’s not how copyright works.
正如电子前哨基金会在”康科德音乐集团诉Anthropic案”和”Mosaic大语言模型诉讼案”的多份法庭之友简报中所述，版权制度并非如此运作。
In fact, accepting this theory would undermine copyright’s constitutional purpose: promoting the creation of expressive works for the public’s benefit.
事实上，采纳该理论将破坏版权的宪法宗旨：为公众利益促进表达性作品的创作。
Because copyright law is designed to encourage others to build freely on existing works, it punishes infringement, not competition.
因版权法旨在鼓励他人在现有作品上自由构建，其惩罚的是侵权，而非竞争。
The “market dilution” theory would eviscerate not only the fair use doctrine, but also other limits on copyright that work specifically to prevent rightsholders from unfairly suppressing competition by claiming broad ownership over tropes, genres, styles, and so on.
”市场稀释”理论不仅会掏空合理使用原则，还将摧毁其他版权限制——这些限制专门防止权利持有人通过宣称对特定主题、流派、风格等的广泛所有权来不公平压制竞争。
In other words, publishers would wield unchecked veto power over any expression that might conceivably compete with a work they own.
换言之，出版商将对任何可能与其作品形成竞争的表述行使不受约束的否决权。
The result? Art doesn’t get created, ideas are never expressed, and we’re all worse off.
结果如何？艺术无从诞生，思想永被禁锢，人人皆受其害。
Copyright shouldn’t be a tool to silence future creative competitors—whether or not they use AI in their work.
版权不该成为扼杀未来创意竞争者的工具——无论其创作是否使用AI。
And the plaintiffs in these cases get at least two other things wrong.
这些案件的原告至少还存在两处谬误。
First, research shows that large generative AI models are unlikely to produce infringing works because the more data on which a model is trained, the less any individual training example matters to any particular output.
首先，研究表明大型生成式AI模型不太可能产出侵权作品，因为模型训练数据越多，单个训练样本对特定输出的影响就越小。
Second, AI tools aren’t necessarily displacing human creativity.
其次，AI工具未必取代人类创造力。
To take a just a few examples:
仅举数例：
-
Boston-based artist Nettrice Gaskins uses AI to create Afro-futurist art, including a portrait of Octavia Butler displayed at the San Francisco Airport
波士顿艺术家内特里斯·加斯金运用AI创作非洲未来主义艺术，包括旧金山机场展出的奥克塔维亚·巴特勒肖像 -
Indian artists Prateek Arora and Varun Gupta use generative AI to reimagine Western science fiction.
印度艺术家普拉蒂克·阿罗拉和瓦伦·古普塔用生成式AI重构西方科幻 -
Philadelphia-based artist Alex Smith uses generative AI to reimagine Afrofuturism with queer, plus-sized Black superheroes.
费城艺术家亚历克斯·史密斯通过生成式AI，以酷儿体型+超大号黑人超级英雄重塑非洲未来主义 -
Ana Miljački, a professor of architecture at MIT, used generative AI to create a “non-liner documentary” film on Yugoslav World War II memorials and the values they embodied.
MIT建筑学教授安娜·米尔亚奇基用生成式AI制作关于南斯拉夫二战纪念碑及其承载价值的”非线性纪录片” -
A research-creation project used AI generated visual art to both amplify the voices of activists in the Iran Woman Life Freedom Movement and evaluate AI’s role in sociopolitical advocacy through art.
某研究创作项目用AI生成视觉艺术，既声援伊朗”女性·生命·自由”运动，也评估AI在艺术化社会政治倡导中的作用 -
AI company Bronze works with musicians like Disclosure and Jai Paul to create songs that never sound the same when played back twice, challenging audience conceptions of what music could be.
AI公司Bronze与Disclosure、杰伊·保罗等音乐人合作创作每次播放都不重复的歌曲，挑战受众对音乐可能性的认知
It is not the place of courts to say these people are not artists or that AI cannot augment human creativity in a positive way.
法院无权断言这些人不是艺术家，或AI不能积极增强人类创造力。
Given this range of experimentation, courts should be reluctant to decide in advance what tools do and do not foster “human creativity.”
鉴于这些探索实践，法院不应预先判定何种工具能培育”人类创造力”。
Like the VTR, large language models are general purpose tools, used by humans to do a broad variety of things far beyond generating lyrics.
与录像机类似，大语言模型是通用工具，人类可用其实现远超歌词生成的广泛用途。
The effects of this particular technological innovation will doubtless be far-reaching, dis…
这项技术创新的影响无疑将深远而…（原文截断）