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.
Počeću ovime. Ovo je rukom ispisan znak koji se pojavio u jednoj porodičnoj pekari u mom starom kraju u Bruklinu pre nekoliko godina. Radnja je imala jednu od onih mašina koje mogu da štampaju na pločama šećera. Deca su mogla da donesu svoje crteže i u radnji su mogli da ih odštampaju na ploči šećera i da ih stave na vrh svoje 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."
Ali nažalost, jedna od stvari koju su deca volela da crtaju su bili crtani likovi. Voleli su da crtaju Malu Sirenu, voleli su da crtaju štrumpfa, voleli su da crtaju Mikija Mausa. Ali ispostavilo se da je protivzakonito štampati dečije crteže Mikija Mausa na ploči šećera. To je povreda autorskih prava. I nadzorni organi za povredu autorskih prava za dečije rođendanske torte su izazvali takvu frku da su u Koledž pekari rekli "Znate šta, mi se povlačimo iz tog posla. Ako ste amater, nećete više moći da koristite našu mašinu. Ako želite rođendansku tortu štampanu šećerom, moraćete da koristite neke od naših fabričkih 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.
Sada u Kongresu postoje dva predloga zakona. Jedan se zove SOPA, a drugi PIPA. SOPA znači Zakon za sprečavanje onlajn piraterije. Taj zakon predlaže Senat. PIPA je skraćeno od PROTECTIP, što je samo po sebi skraćenica za "prevenciju ozbiljnih onlajn pretnji ekonomskoj kreativnosti i krađi intelektualne svojine" - jer savetnici u kongresu koji smišljaju ovakve nazive imaju puno slobodnog vremena. A šta SOPA i PIPA žele da urade je sledeće. Oni žele da podignu cenu poštovanja autorskih prava do te mere gde ljudi jednostavno izlaze iz poslova koji nude 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.
Oni predlažu da se to uradi tako što će se identifikovati sajtovi koji u osnovi krše autorska prava - međutim na koji način će se ti sajtovi identifikovati nije tačno precizirano u predlogu zakona - i oni žele da ih sklone iz sistema imena domena. Oni žele da ih uklone iz sistema domena. Sistem imena domena je ono što pretvara čitljive ljudske nazive, kao Google.com, u neku vrstu adresa koju mašine razumeju -- 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 sa ovom vrstom cenzure, sa identifikovanjem sajta i zatim pokušajem da se on ukloni iz sistema imena domena, je to što to neće funkcionisati. I vi biste pomislili da će to biti prilično veliki problem za zakonodavce ali Kongres ne dozvoljava da ih to preterano muči. Razlog zbog čega to neće funkcionisati je to što vi i dalje možete da ukucate 74.125.226.212. u pretraživač ili da ga pretvorite u link na koji možete da kliknete i on će vas odvesti do Gugla. Tako da sloj nadzora koji obavija ovaj problem postaje prava pretnja za celu stvar.
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 razumeli kako je Kongres uspeo da napiše predlog zakona koji neće postići svoje zacrtane ciljeve, ali će proizvesti mnogo opasnih sporednih efekata, morate imati uvid u pozadinu priče. A pozadina je ovo: SOPA i PIPA, su kao zakoni napisani u velikoj meri od strane medijskih kompanija koje su osnovane u dvadesetom veku. Dvadeseti vek je bio odlično vreme za medijske kompanije, jer ono što ste imali kao kec u rukavu je oskudica. Ako ste pravili TV emisiju, ona nije morala da bude bolja od ostalih TV emisija; samo je morala da bude bolja od ostale dve emisije koje su bile na programu u isto vreme - što je prilično nizak stepen konkurencije. Što je značilo da ako imate sasvim prosečan sadržaj, dobijate trećinu gledanosti u SAD za džabe - desetine miliona korisnika, kad uradite bilo šta što nije mnogo strašno. To je kao da imate dozvolu da štampate novac, a onda i bure besplatnog mastila.
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 je napredovala, kao što tehnologije inače rade. I polako, do kraja dvadesetog veka ta oskudica je počela da erodira - i to ne mislim zbog digitalne tehnologije; već zbog analogne tehnologije. Video kasete, video rekorderi, čak i skormna fotokopir mašina omogućila nam je da se ponašamo na način koji je zaprepastio biznis medija. Jer se ispostavilo da mi zapravo nismo samo zalepljeni za kućne fotelje. I da mi ne želimo samo da konzumiramo. Mi volimo da konzumiramo ali svaki put kad je izašla neka od ovih novih spravica, ispostavilo se da mi isto tako volimo i da proizvodimo i da volimo da delimo to sa drugima. I to je uplašilo biznis medija - i svaki put ih je izbezumilo. Džek Velenti, koji je bio glavni lobista za Američku filmsku asocijaciju, je jednom prilikom uporedio opaki video rekorder sa Džekom Trbosekom a jadni, bespomoćni Holivud sa ženom koja je sama kod kuće. To je bio taj nivo 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.
Tako da su medijske industrije molile, insistirale, zahtevale da Kongres nešto preduzme. I Kongres jeste nešto preduzeo. Do ranih devedesetih, Kongres je izglasao zakon koji je sve promenio. I taj zakon se zvao Odredba o kućnom snimanju 1992. Ono što Odredba o kućnom snimanju iz 1992. kaže je da ako ljudi nešto snimaju sa radija i onda prave mikseve na kasetama za svoje prijatelje, to nije zločin. To je okej. Snimanje i remiksovanje i zatim deljenje toga sa svojim prijateljima je okej. Ako napravite gomilu kopija viskog kvaliteta i prodajete ih, to nije u redu. Ali ovaj posao sa presnimavanjem, dobro, neka bude. I oni su mislili da je stvar jasna, jer su postavili jasnu razliku između legalnog i neleganog 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 to nije ono što su medijske kompanije želele. One su htele da Kongres protera presnimavanje i tačka. Tako da kada je Odredba o kućnom snimanju iz 1992. usvojena, medijske kompanije su odustale od ideje razlikovanja legalnog i nelegalnog presnimavanja jer je bilo jasno da ako Kongres deluje u njihovom okviru, oni zapravo mogu povećati prava građana da učestvuju u svom medijskom okruženju. Tako da su krenuli na plan B. Formulisanje plana B je potrajalo.
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 pojavio u svojoj prvoj punoj formi 1998. nešto što se zvalo Digitalna milenijumska uredba o presnimavanju. To je bio komplikovani zakon, sa puno poglavlja. Ali glavni udarac DMUP je taj što je legalno kupovati digitalni materiajal koji ne može da se kopira s tim što ne postoji digitalni materijal koji ne može da se kopira. To je, kao što je Ed Felton jednom rekao, "Kao davati vodu koja nije mokra". Bitovi mogu da se kopiraju. To je ono što kompjuteri rade. To je deo njihove uobičajene operacije.
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.
Da bi lažirali mogućnost prodaje bitova koji se ne kopiraju, DMUP je takođe ozakonila nametanje korišćenja sistema koji su kvarili funkciju kopiranja na vašem uređaju. Svaki DVD plejer i igračka konzola i televizor i računar koji ste doneli kući bez obzira na to šta ste vi mislila da kupujete - je mogao da bude pokvaren od strane industrije sadržaja ako su oni želeli da postave to kao uslov da vam prodaju sadržaj. I da bi se pobrinuli da vi ne shvatite ili ako ne podrazumevate njihove karakteristike kao komjuterske naprave za generalnu upotrebu, oni su takođe učinili nezakonitim da probate da resetujete mogućnost kopiranja tog sadržaja. DMUP beleži trenutak kada je medijska industrija odustala od pravnog sistema koji postavlja razliku između legalnog i nelegalnog kopiranja i jednostavno probala da spreči kopiranje tehničkim onemogućavanjem.
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.
DMUP je imao i još uvek ima neke probleme, ali u domenu limitiranog deljenja sadržaja, uglavnom nije radio kako treba. A glavni razlog zašto to nije radilo je to što je Internet postao mnogo popularniji i moćniji nego što se moglo zamisliti. Kopirane kasete, magazini za fanove, nisu bili ništa u poređenju sa ovim što sada omogućava Internet. Mi smo u svetu gde većina američkih državljana preko 12 godina deli onlajn sadržaje jedni sa drugima. Delimo tekstove, slike audio i video fajlove. Nešto od onoga što delimo su stvari koje smo mi napravili. Neke stvari smo pronašli. Neke stvari smo napravili od onoga što smo pronašli i sve to užasava te industrije.
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.
Tako da su PIPA i SOPA zapravo druga runda. Ali dok je DMUP bila hiruška - mi želimo da uđemo u vaš računar, mi želimo da uđemo u vaš televizor, u vaše konzole, i da ih sprečimo da rade ono što su u prodavnici rekli da će raditi - PIPA i SOPA su nuklearni i oni kažu, mi želimo da idemo gde god poželimo na svetu i da cenzurišemo sadržaj. Kao što sam rekao, mehanizam koji ovo omogućava mora da ukloni svakoga ko vodi do tih IP adresa. Moraju da se uklone iz pretraživača, iz onlajn direktorijuma, da ih uklone sa liste korisnika. A s obzirom da najveći proizvođači sadržaja na Internetu nisu Gugle i Jahu, već mi mi smo oni koje treba kazniti. Jer na kraju krajeva prava pretnja ozakonjavanju PIPE i SOPE je mogućnost da delimo sadržaje jedni sa drugima.
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 rizikuju da urade je da uzmu vekovima star pravni koncept, nevin dok se ne dokaže suprotno, i da ga preokrenu - kriv dok se ne dokaže da je nevin. Ne možete da delite sadržaj dok nam ne pokažete da ne delite nešto što se nama ne sviđa. Odjednom, teret dokazivanja da li je legalno ili ne sigurno pada na nas i na servise koji nam nude nove mogućnosti. I ako nadgledanje korisnika košta i samo jednu paru to će servis sa stotinu miliona korisnika dovesti do bankrota.
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.
Tako su oni zamislili Internet. Zamislite ovaj znak svuda - samo da ne piše Koledž pekara već da piše Jutjub i Fejsbuk i Tviter. Zamislite da piše TED, jer komentari mogu da se nadgledaju i ukinu po svaku prihvatljivu cenu. Prave posledice SOPE i PIPE će biti drugačije od pretpostavljenih posledica. Pretnja je zapravo preokretanje tereta dokazivanja, gde nas odjednom tretiraju kao lopove u svakom trenutku gde nam je omogućeno da stvaramo, da proizvodimo ili da delimo. A ljudi koji su nam to omogućili - Jutjubovi, Fejsbukovi, Tviteri i TEDovi - će morati da nas nadgledaju, i uklanjanju, ili da budu učesnici u kršenju zakona.
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.
Postoje dve stvari koje vi možete da uradite da pomognete da ovo prestane - jedna je jednostavna, a jedna je komplikovna stvar, laka stvar i teška stvar. Jednostavna stvar je ova: ako ste američki državljanin, nazovite svog predstavnika, nazovite svog senatora. Ako pogledate ljude koji su potpisivali SOPA predlog zakona ljude koji su potpisivali PIPA ono što vidite je da su oni kumulativno dobijali milione i milione dolara od tradicionalnih medijskih industrija. Vi nemate milione i milione dolara, ali možete pozvati vaše predstavnike, i podsetiti ih da ste glasači i zamoliti ih da vas ne tretiraju kao lopove, i možete da im predložite da biste više voleli da se Intenet ne pokvari.
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 poznajete i ohrabriti ih da učine isto. Jer ovo izgleda kao nacionalno pitanje, ali nije. Ove industrije neće biti zadovoljne ako slome naš Internet. Ako ga slome, biće slomljen za sve. To je laka stvar. To je jednostavna stvar.
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 ovo: budite spremni, jer biće još toga. SOPA je jednostavno samo verzija COICA koji je predložen prošle godine, ali nije ozakonjen. I sve ovo ide do neuspeha DMUP da zabrani deljenje tehničkim onemogućavanjem. A DMUP ide od Uredbe o kućnom presnimavanju, koje je užasavalo te industrije. Jer čitava stvar pretpostavljanja da neko krši zakon i onda nalaženja dokaza za to je ustvari zaista neugodna. "Mi radije ne bismo da to radimo" kažu industrije koje omogućavaju sadržaj. A one žele da ne moraju to da rade. Ne žele pravnu razliku između legalnog i nelegalnog deljenja sadržaja. One samo žele da deljenje sadržaja nestane.
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 čudni, nisu anomalije, nisu događaji. Oni su sledeće okretanje jednog posebnog šrafa, koji se okreće već proteklih 20 godina. I ako uspemo da ih porazimo ovde, kao što se ja nadam, još tek sledi. Jer dok ne ubedimo Kongres da je način na koji treba tretirati povrede autorskih prava način na koji su one rešene sa Nepsterom, sa Jutjubom, a to je suđenje sa predstavljanjem svih dokaza i diskutovanjem o činjenicama i proceni pravnih lekova kako se inače dešava u demokratskim društvima. To je način na koji bi ovo trebalo da se rešava.
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, teža stvar je biti spreman, Jer to je prava poruka koju šalju PIPA i SOPA. Tajm Vorner je zvao i oni žele da se vratimo u fotelje i da konzumiramo - ne da proizvodimo, ne da delimo - i mi treba da kažemo "Ne".
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)