I'm going to start here. This is a hand-lettered sign that appeared in a mom and pop bakery in my old neighborhood in Brooklyn a few years ago. The store owned one of those machines that can print on plates of sugar. And kids could bring in drawings and have the store print a sugar plate for the top of their birthday cake.
Počet ću s ovime. Ovo je rukom pisana obavijest koja se pojavila u obiteljskoj pekarnici u mom nekadašnjem naselju u Brooklynu prije nekoliko godina. Dućan je posjedovao jedan od onih strojeva koji su ispisivali na šećerne table. Djeca su mogla donijeti svoje crteže i dućan bi im otisnuo šećernu tablu za gornji dio njihove rođendanske torte.
But unfortunately, one of the things kids liked to draw was cartoon characters. They liked to draw the Little Mermaid, they'd like to draw a smurf, they'd like to draw Micky Mouse. But it turns out to be illegal to print a child's drawing of Micky Mouse onto a plate of sugar. And it's a copyright violation. And policing copyright violations for children's birthday cakes was such a hassle that the College Bakery said, "You know what, we're getting out of that business. If you're an amateur, you don't have access to our machine anymore. If you want a printed sugar birthday cake, you have to use one of our prefab images -- only for professionals."
Nažalost, jedna od stvari koje su djeca voljela crtati bili su likovi iz crtića. Voljeli su crtati Malu sirenu, voljeli su crtati Štrumpfove, Mickyja Mousea. Ali je protiv zakona tiskati dječje crteže Mickyja Mousea na šećernu tablu. Riječ je o kršenju autorskih prava. A nadzirati kršenje autorskih prava na dječjim rođendanskim tortama je bilo toliko zeznuto da je College pekarnica rekla, "Znate što, izlazimo iz ovog posla. Ako ste amater, više nemate pravo pristupa našem stroju. Ako želite rođendansku tortu s ilustracijom, morate prihvatiti jednu od ponuđenih slika -- samo za profesionalce."
So there's two bills in Congress right now. One is called SOPA, the other is called PIPA. SOPA stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act. It's from the Senate. PIPA is short for PROTECTIP, which is itself short for Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property -- because the congressional aides who name these things have a lot of time on their hands. And what SOPA and PIPA want to do is they want to do this. They want to raise the cost of copyright compliance to the point where people simply get out of the business of offering it as a capability to amateurs.
Danas su pred Kongresom dva zakona. Jedan se zove SOPA, a drugi PIPA. SOPA je skraćenica za zaustavite internetsko piratstvo. Predlaže ga Senat. PIPA je skraćeno od PROTECTIP, što je opet skraćenica za Sprečavanje stvarnih internetskih prijetnji ekonomskoj kreativnosti i krađe intelektualnog vlasništva -- pomoćnici u Kongresu koji daju ovakva imena imaju jako puno slobodnog vremena. Ono što SOPA i PIPA žele učiniti je sljedeće: Žele povisiti troškove poštivanja autorskih prava do razine na kojoj ljudi jednostavno izlaze iz posla i više ne daju te mogućnosti amaterima.
Now the way they propose to do this is to identify sites that are substantially infringing on copyright -- although how those sites are identified is never fully specified in the bills -- and then they want to remove them from the domain name system. They want to take them out of the domain name system. Now the domain name system is the thing that turns human-readable names, like Google.com, into the kinds of addresses machines expect -- 74.125.226.212.
Predlažu da se to postigne na način da se utvrde internetske stranice koje značajno krše copyright -- premda u zakonima nije sasvim definirano kako će se utvrditi te stranice -- a zatim ih žele ukloniti iz sustava domena. Žele ih isključiti iz sustava domena. Sustav domena je sustav koji pretvara ljudima razumljive nazive, poput Google.com, u adrese koje očekuju uređaji -- 74.125.226.212.
Now the problem with this model of censorship, of identifying a site and then trying to remove it from the domain name system, is that it won't work. And you'd think that would be a pretty big problem for a law, but Congress seems not to have let that bother them too much. Now the reason it won't work is that you can still type 74.125.226.212 into the browser or you can make it a clickable link and you'll still go to Google. So the policing layer around the problem becomes the real threat of the act.
Problem s ovim modelom cenzure, određivanja stranica i potom pokušaja da ih se ukloni iz sustava domena, je u tome da neće uspjeti. Pomislili biste da će to biti velik problem za jedan zakon, no čini se da Kongres nije baš nešto zabrinut zbog toga. Razlog zašto ovo neće uspjeti je u tome što još uvijek možete ukucati 74.125.226.212 u vaš preglednik ili od adrese možete napraviti poveznicu na koju se klikne i ipak ćete otići na Google. I tako ogrtač nadzora oko ovog problema postaje prava prijetnja ovog zakona.
Now to understand how Congress came to write a bill that won't accomplish its stated goals, but will produce a lot of pernicious side effects, you have to understand a little bit about the back story. And the back story is this: SOPA and PIPA, as legislation, were drafted largely by media companies that were founded in the 20th century. The 20th century was a great time to be a media company, because the thing you really had on your side was scarcity. If you were making a TV show, it didn't have to be better than all other TV shows ever made; it only had to be better than the two other shows that were on at the same time -- which is a very low threshold of competitive difficulty. Which meant that if you fielded average content, you got a third of the U.S. public for free -- tens of millions of users for simply doing something that wasn't too terrible. This is like having a license to print money and a barrel of free ink.
Da biste razumjeli kako je to Kongres napisao zakon koji neće postići svoje proklamirane ciljeve, ali će stvoriti mnoge štetne popratne učinke, morate znati dio priče koji stoji iza svega. A ta priča je sljedeća: SOPA-u i PIPA-u, kao zakonske prijedloge, skicirale su uglavnom medijske kompanije osnovane u dvadesetom stoljeću. 20. stoljeće je bilo sjajno doba za medijske kompanije, jer vam je u prilog išla oskudnost ponude. Ako ste snimali TV emisiju, nije morala biti bolja od svih drugih TV emisija ikad snimljenih; morala je samo biti bolja od druge dvije emisije koje su se prikazivale u isto vrijeme -- što je vrlo nizak prag konkurentske zahtjevnosti. Što znači da ako nudite prosječan sadržaj, dobijate trećinu američke publike besplatno -- desetke milijuna korisnika jednostavno pružajući im nešto što nije odviše grozno. To vam je kao da dobijete dozvolu tiskanja novca i bure besplatne tinte.
But technology moved on, as technology is wont to do. And slowly, slowly, at the end of the 20th century, that scarcity started to get eroded -- and I don't mean by digital technology; I mean by analog technology. Cassette tapes, video cassette recorders, even the humble Xerox machine created new opportunities for us to behave in ways that astonished the media business. Because it turned out we're not really couch potatoes. We don't really like to only consume. We do like to consume, but every time one of these new tools came along, it turned out we also like to produce and we like to share. And this freaked the media businesses out -- it freaked them out every time. Jack Valenti, who was the head lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America, once likened the ferocious video cassette recorder to Jack the Ripper and poor, helpless Hollywood to a woman at home alone. That was the level of rhetoric.
Ali tehnologija napreduje, kako to već tehnologija hoće. I polako, polako, krajem 20. stoljeća, ta je oskudnost počela nestajati -- i to ne zbog digitalne tehnologije; zbog analogne tehnologije. Kasetne vrpce, video rekorderi, čak i skromne Xerox fotokopirke stvorili su nove mogućnosti da se ponašamo na načine koji su zaprepastili medijski biznis. Budući da se pokazalo da nismo zaista mrtva puhala na kauču. Nije da stvarno želimo samo konzumirati. Volimo konzumirati, ali kad god se pojavio neki novi alat, pokazalo se da također volimo i proizvoditi i volimo dijeliti. I ovo je izbezumljivalo medijske kompanije -- izbezumilo ih svaki puta. Jack Valenti, glavni lobist Filmskog Udruženja (Motion Picture Association of America), nekoć je usporedio krvožedni video rekorder s Jackom Trbosjekom a jadni, bespomoćni Hollywood sa ženom koja je sama kod kuće. To je bila razina retorike.
And so the media industries begged, insisted, demanded that Congress do something. And Congress did something. By the early 90s, Congress passed the law that changed everything. And that law was called the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. What the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 said was, look, if people are taping stuff off the radio and then making mixtapes for their friends, that is not a crime. That's okay. Taping and remixing and sharing with your friends is okay. If you make lots and lots of high quality copies and you sell them, that's not okay. But this taping business, fine, let it go. And they thought that they clarified the issue, because they'd set out a clear distinction between legal and illegal copying.
I tako je medijska industrija molila, inzistirala, zahtijevala da Kongres nešto poduzme. i Kongres je poduzeo. Ranih 90-tih, Kongres je donio zakon koji je sve promijenio. Taj zakon je nazvan Zakon o kućnom audio snimanju iz 1992. Taj je zakon propisao da ako ljudi snimaju s radija i zatim izrađuju mješovite vrpce za prijatelje, to nije kazneno djelo. To je u redu. Snimanje na vrpcu i miješanje i dijeljenje s prijateljima je u redu. Ako napravite mnogo visokokvalitetnih kopija i prodajete ih, to nije u redu. Ali to snimanje na vrpce, dobro je, pustimo ih. I mislili su da je time stvar raščišćena, jer su postavili jasno razgraničenje između zakonitog i nezakonitog kopiranja.
But that wasn't what the media businesses wanted. They had wanted Congress to outlaw copying full-stop. So when the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 was passed, the media businesses gave up on the idea of legal versus illegal distinctions for copying because it was clear that if Congress was acting in their framework, they might actually increase the rights of citizens to participate in our own media environment. So they went for plan B. It took them a while to formulate plan B.
Ali medijska industrija nije to željela. Oni su željeli da Kongres u cijelosti zabrani kopiranje. Kad je Zakon o audio snimanju izglasan 1992., mediji su napustili ideju o razlikama između zakonitog i nezakonitog kopiranja jer je bilo jasno da ako Kongres bude djelovao u tim okvirima, mogli bi zapravo povećati prava građana da sudjeluju u našem medijskom okruženju. Pa su pristupili planu B. Trebalo im je neko vrijeme da formuliraju plan B.
Plan B appeared in its first full-blown form in 1998 -- something called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It was a complicated piece of legislation, a lot of moving parts. But the main thrust of the DMCA was that it was legal to sell you uncopyable digital material -- except that there's no such things as uncopyable digital material. It would be, as Ed Felton once famously said, "Like handing out water that wasn't wet." Bits are copyable. That's what computers do. That is a side effect of their ordinary operation.
Plan B se u svojem potpuno razvijenom obliku pojavio 1998. godine -- pod nazivom Digitalni milenijski zakon o autorskim pravima (DMCA). Bio je to kompliciran zakon s puno pomičnih dijelova. Ali glavni koncept DMCA je u tome da vam imaju zakonito pravo prodati digitalni materijal koji se ne može kopirati -- osim što ne postoji digitalni materijal koji se ne može kopirati. Bilo je to, kako je Ed Felton jednom slavno rekao, "Kao da dajete vodu koja nije mokra." Bitovi se mogu kopirati. To je ono što računala čine. To je prateći učinak njihovog uobičajenog rada.
So in order to fake the ability to sell uncopyable bits, the DMCA also made it legal to force you to use systems that broke the copying function of your devices. Every DVD player and game player and television and computer you brought home -- no matter what you thought you were getting when you bought it -- could be broken by the content industries, if they wanted to set that as a condition of selling you the content. And to make sure you didn't realize, or didn't enact their capabilities as general purpose computing devices, they also made it illegal for you to try to reset the copyability of that content. The DMCA marks the moment when the media industries gave up on the legal system of distinguishing between legal and illegal copying and simply tried to prevent copying through technical means.
Pa je zakon DMCA, da bi se lažirala sposobnost prodaje bitova koji se ne mogu kopirati, također proglasio da vas se zakonito može natjerati da koristite sustave koji eliminiraju kopirnu funkciju vaših uređaja. Svaki DVD uređaj i igraća konzola i televizor i računalo koje ste donijeli kući -- bez obzira na to što ste mislili da dobivate kad ste ga kupili -- može se ograničiti od strane pružatelja sadržaja, ako bi oni to poželjeli postaviti kao uvjet prodaje sadržaja. I da se osiguraju da to ne otkrijete, ili ne aktivirate sve sposobnosti koje općenamjenski računalni uređaji imaju, također su proglasili nezakonitim vaš pokušaj da omogućite kopirljivost sadržaja. Zakon DMCA označava trenutak kada je medijska industrija digla ruke od zakona koji razlikuju zakonito od nezakonitog kopiranja i naprosto pokušala spriječiti kopiranje tehničkim sredstvima.
Now the DMCA had, and is continuing to have, a lot of complicated effects, but in this one domain, limiting sharing, it has mostly not worked. And the main reason it hasn't worked is the Internet has turned out to be far more popular and far more powerful than anyone imagined. The mixtape, the fanzine, that was nothing compared to what we're seeing now with the Internet. We are in a world where most American citizens over the age of 12 share things with each other online. We share written things, we share images, we share audio, we share video. Some of the stuff we share is stuff we've made. Some of the stuff we share is stuff we've found. Some of the stuff we share is stuff we've made out of what we've found, and all of it horrifies those industries.
DMCA je imao, i ima, mnogo kompliciranih učinaka, ali na ovom području, u ograničavanju dijeljenja, uglavnom nije uspio. Glavni razlog zašto nisu uspjeli je u tome što se internet pokazao daleko popularniji i moćniji nego što je itko zamišljao. Miješane vrpce, fanzini, nisu bili ništa u usporedbi s onim što sada vidimo na internetu. Živimo u svijetu u kojem većina američkih građana starijih od 12 godina međusobno dijeli stvari na mreži. Dijelimo zapise, dijelimo slike, dijelimo zvuk, dijelimo snimke. Nešto od onoga što dijelimo smo sami napravili. Nešto od onoga što dijelimo smo pronašli. Nešto od onoga što dijelimo je ono što smo sami napravili pomoću onoga što smo našli, i sve to užasava medijsku industriju.
So PIPA and SOPA are round two. But where the DMCA was surgical -- we want to go down into your computer, we want to go down into your television set, down into your game machine, and prevent it from doing what they said it would do at the store -- PIPA and SOPA are nuclear and they're saying, we want to go anywhere in the world and censor content. Now the mechanism, as I said, for doing this, is you need to take out anybody pointing to those IP addresses. You need to take them out of search engines, you need to take them out of online directories, you need to take them out of user lists. And because the biggest producers of content on the Internet are not Google and Yahoo, they're us, we're the people getting policed. Because in the end, the real threat to the enactment of PIPA and SOPA is our ability to share things with one another.
I tako su PIPA i SOPA druga runda. Ali dok je zakon DMCA bio kirurški -- mi želimo ući u vaše računalo, želimo ući u vaš televizor, u vašu konzolu, i spriječiti ih da rade ono što su vam u trgovini rekli da mogu raditi -- PIPA i SOPA su nuklearni i kažu: želimo doći bilo gdje u svijetu i cenzurirati sadržaj. Mehanizam, kao što rekoh, kojim se ovo postiže, je da uklonite svakoga tko upućuje na te IP adrese. Morate ih eliminirati iz tražilica, morate ih eliminirati iz mrežnih direktorija, iz korisničkih lista. A budući da najveći proizvođači sadržaja na internetu nisu Google i Yahoo, već smo to mi, mi smo ti koje će se nadzirati. Naposlijetku, stvarna prijetnja provedbi PIPA-e i SOPA-e je naša mogućnost da dijelimo stvari jedan s drugim.
So what PIPA and SOPA risk doing is taking a centuries-old legal concept, innocent until proven guilty, and reversing it -- guilty until proven innocent. You can't share until you show us that you're not sharing something we don't like. Suddenly, the burden of proof for legal versus illegal falls affirmatively on us and on the services that might be offering us any new capabilities. And if it costs even a dime to police a user, that will crush a service with a hundred million users.
Ono što PIPA i SOPA ovime riskiraju je da stoljetni pravni koncept, nedužan si dok ti se ne dokaže krivica, preokrenu u -- kriv si dok ti se ne dokaže nedužnost. Ne možeš dijeliti dok nam ne dokažeš da ne dijeliš nešto što nam se ne sviđa. Iznenada, teret dokazivanja zakonitog i nezakonitog pozitivno pada na nas i na usluge koje bi nam mogle nuditi nove mogućnosti. A ako košta makar i sitnicu da se nadzire korisnik, to će uništiti uslužnu kompaniju koja ima stotinu milijuna korisnika.
So this is the Internet they have in mind. Imagine this sign everywhere -- except imagine it doesn't say College Bakery, imagine it says YouTube and Facebook and Twitter. Imagine it says TED, because the comments can't be policed at any acceptable cost. The real effects of SOPA and PIPA are going to be different than the proposed effects. The threat, in fact, is this inversion of the burden of proof, where we suddenly are all treated like thieves at every moment we're given the freedom to create, to produce or to share. And the people who provide those capabilities to us -- the YouTubes, the Facebooks, the Twitters and TEDs -- are in the business of having to police us, or being on the hook for contributory infringement.
To je Internet kakav su oni zamislili. Zamislite posvuda ovaj znak -- ali zamislite da ne piše pekarnica College, zamislite da piše YouTube i Facebook i Twitter. Zamislite da piše TED, jer se komentari ne mogu nadzirati s prihvatljivim troškovima. Pravi učinci SOPA-e i PIPA-e će biti drugačiji od zamišljenih. Prijetnja se, zapravo, sastoji u promjeni na kome je teret dokazivanja, kada nas se iznenada sve tretira kao lopove u svakom trenutku u kojem imamo slobodu stvaranja, proizvodnje ili dijeljenja. A oni koji nam pružaju te mogućnosti -- razni YouTube, Facebook, Twitter i TED -- dobivaju posao u kojem nas moraju nadzirati, i nalaze se na rubu kršenja zakona zbog nečijeg priloga.
There's two things you can do to help stop this -- a simple thing and a complicated thing, an easy thing and a hard thing. The simple thing, the easy thing, is this: if you're an American citizen, call your representative, call your senator. When you look at the people who co-signed on the SOPA bill, people who've co-signed on PIPA, what you see is that they have cumulatively received millions and millions of dollars from the traditional media industries. You don't have millions and millions of dollars, but you can call your representatives, and you can remind them that you vote, and you can ask not to be treated like a thief, and you can suggest that you would prefer that the Internet not be broken.
Možete učiniti dvije stvari da pomognete da ovo zaustavimo -- jednostavnu stvar i kompliciranu stvar, laku stvar i tešku stvar. Jednostavna, laka stvar je ova: ako ste američki državljanin, nazovite svog predstavnika, nazovite svog senatora. Ako pogledate ljude koji su supotpisali prijedlog SOPA, ljude koji su supotpisali prijedlog PIPA, vidjet ćete da su ukupno primili milijune i milijune dolara od tradicionalnih medijskih kuća. Vi nemate milijune i milijune dolara, ali možete nazvati vaše predstavnike, i možete ih podsjetiti da izlazite na biralište, i možete zahtijevati da vas se ne tretira kao lopova, i možete sugerirati da biste više voljeli da ne unište internet.
And if you're not an American citizen, you can contact American citizens that you know and encourage them to do the same. Because this seems like a national issue, but it is not. These industries will not be content with breaking our Internet. If they break it, they will break it for everybody. That's the easy thing. That's the simple thing.
A ako niste američki državljanin, možete kontaktirati Amerikance koje znate i motivirati ih da učine isto. Ovo izgleda kao nacionalna stvar, ali nije. Te industrije se neće zadovoljiti uništenjem našeg interneta. Ako ga unište, uništit će ga svima. To je lagana stvar. To je ono jednostavno.
The hard thing is this: get ready, because more is coming. SOPA is simply a reversion of COICA, which was purposed last year, which did not pass. And all of this goes back to the failure of the DMCA to disallow sharing as a technical means. And the DMCA goes back to the Audio Home Recording Act, which horrified those industries. Because the whole business of actually suggesting that someone is breaking the law and then gathering evidence and proving that, that turns out to be really inconvenient. "We'd prefer not to do that," says the content industries. And what they want is not to have to do that. They don't want legal distinctions between legal and illegal sharing. They just want the sharing to go away.
Teška stvar je ova: pripremite se, jer slijedi još. SOPA je jednostavno varijanta COICA-e, koji je predložen prošle godine, a koji nije prošao. A sve ovo proistječe iz propasti zakona DMCA koji je trebao spriječiti dijeljenje tehničkim putem. A DMCA slijedi iz Zakona o audio snimanju, koji je užasnuo te industrije. Kada se bavite sugeriranjem da je netko prekršio zakon i skupljate dokaze i tvrdnju dokazujete, to je zaista nezgodan posao. "Mi bismo radije da to ne moramo raditi," govore proizvođači sadržaja. I oni žele da to ne moraju raditi. Oni ne žele zakonsku razliku između zakonitog i nezakonitog dijeljenja. Oni samo žele da se prestane dijeliti.
PIPA and SOPA are not oddities, they're not anomalies, they're not events. They're the next turn of this particular screw, which has been going on 20 years now. And if we defeat these, as I hope we do, more is coming. Because until we convince Congress that the way to deal with copyright violation is the way copyright violation was dealt with with Napster, with YouTube, which is to have a trial with all the presentation of evidence and the hashing out of facts and the assessment of remedies that goes on in democratic societies. That's the way to handle this.
PIPA i SOPA nisu ekstremi, nisu anomalije, nisu izuzetni događaji. Oni su novi okretaj ovog konkretnog zavrtnja, koji se zbiva evo već 20 godina. A ako i pobijedimo ove zakone, kako se i nadam, bit će ih još. Jer dok ne uvjerimo Kongres da se protiv kršenja autorskih prava treba boriti kako se učinilo s Napsterom i s YouTube-om, na suđenju s izvođenjem dokaza i analizom činjenica i utvrđivanjem rješenja kako se to radi u demokratskim društvima. Tako se treba nositi s ovim problemom.
In the meantime, the hard thing to do is to be ready. Because that's the real message of PIPA and SOPA. Time Warner has called and they want us all back on the couch, just consuming -- not producing, not sharing -- and we should say, "No."
U međuvremenu, teška stvar je ostati spreman. Jer je to prava poruka PIPA-e i SOPA-e. Time Warner se izjasnio i žele da se svi vratimo na kauč, i samo konzumiramo -- ne proizvodimo, ne dijelimo -- i mi bismo trebali odgovoriti, "Ne."
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)