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.
我想从这儿开始。 这是一个手写告示 在数年前出现在布鲁克林 我住过的旧社区里一个家庭式面包店里 店中的机器中有一台 可以用糖打印图文的机器 孩子们会带着画来 让面包店在他们的 生日蛋糕上画上一幅糖画。
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."
但不幸地是,孩子们最喜欢画的东西之一 就是卡通人物。 他们喜欢画小美人鱼, 蓝精灵,米老鼠。 但结果,把一副孩子画的 米老鼠画做成糖画 竟是非法的 并且侵犯了版权 监管孩子生日蛋糕的 版权侵犯 真是个麻烦事 学院面包店如是说, “你知道么,这个业务我们不能再提供了 如果你是个外行 你可不能擅用我们的机器。 如果你制作一份带糖画的生日蛋糕, 你必须用从我们的预制图像中选取一个 —— 机器只对专业人士开放。”
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.
这是目前国会的两个议案。 一个名为SOPA,另一个名为PIPA。 SOPA表示禁止网络盗版法案(Stop Online Piracy Act)。 它出自参议院。 PIPA是PROTECTIP的缩写, 这本身又是 防止实时在线 对经济创新能力 的威胁和对知识产权的盗窃法案的缩写—— 提出这些法案的国会助手 有着大把的时间。 SOPA和PIPA想做的 就是他们想做的。 他们想把遵守版权的成本 提高到某个程度, 这样外行人就 直接无法参与了
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.
现在他们的方法是 识别出那些 严重侵犯版权的网站 —— 但是到底怎么鉴别这些网站 法案到说得不明不白-- 识别后他们就要删除其域名 把他们的域名删了 域名系统就是 把我们能读的名字,比如Google.com 转化成 机器阅读的地址- 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.
这个审查模式的问题是 鉴定一个网站 然后移除其域名 这根本行不通 而且在法律上来说也相当棘手 但是国会似乎根本不操心这个 这个方法不奏效的原因是 如果你在浏览器输入74.125.226.212 或者做一个链接 你仍然能打开谷歌 所以这个问题的 监管层面 是这个法案本身最大的问题
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.
国会是怎么写了一个 自己没法达成目标 还导致负面效果的法案呢 你得再深入了解点此问题 这个问题的背景就是 SOPA和PIPA的立法 主要是由上世纪成立的 媒体公司起草的 20世纪的媒体公司风华正茂的时候 因为他们掌握着稀缺资源 如果拍个电视 根本不必做得比以前的好 只要比 另两家的电视好就成了 同时放映的只有这么多- 这个对竞争难度 是个很低的门槛 也就是说 你只要作出平均水平的东西 就有了全美三分之一的观众- 那可是上千万人 只要简单做点东西 不太烂就可以了 这就好像有印钞的许可证 还有一桶免费的墨水
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.
但是技术在发展,一直在进步 渐渐地,到了20世纪末 稀缺性坐吃山空-- 我不是说数字技术 我是说模拟技术 磁带录像带,录像机 甚至是不起眼的复印机 提供给我们新机会 让媒体行业 大大吃了一惊 因为不是每个人 都窝在沙发上看电视 我们不愿意只做消费者 我们的确喜欢消费 但每当有新工具问世 我们就希望做出点什么 来分享 这可让媒体行业不爽了- 每次都是 杰克・瓦伦蒂是美国电影协会的 首席说客 他有次把盒带式录像机比喻成 开膛手杰克 把可怜的无助的好莱坞 比喻成独自在家的女人 就是这么比喻的
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.
媒体行业 乞求,强调,要求 国会得做点什么 国会确实做了 九十年代初国会通过了一个法案 改变了一切 该法案就是 1992年的《家庭录制法》 1992年的《家庭录制法》规定 如果人们自己录像 然后和朋友分享 这不是犯罪,没事 录像,制作 和朋友分享是可以的 但是如果制作很多高质量的然后出售 就不行了 但是录像的行为 就放行吧 他们觉得话说得很明白了 因为他们划清了 合法和非法翻拍的界线
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.
但那可不是媒体行业想的 他们要的是 国会禁止翻拍行为 所以当1992年《家庭录制法》通过的时候 媒体行业放弃了 划定合法和非法翻拍行为的想法 因为很明显 如果国会真的执行的话 这可能反而促使 更多人参与媒体活动 他们另辟蹊径 找到这另一个法子不容易
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.
这个方法1998年终于 全面问世 称作《数字千年著作权法案》 这个立法内容非常复杂,有很多灵活的部分 但是DMCA的杀手锏是 销售不可复制的 数字内容是合法的- 但是根本就不存在不可复制的数字内容阿 就像爱德・费尔顿说的 “像泼出 不湿的水一样。” 比特位是可以复制的,这是电脑的功能 这是电脑正常操作的一个副产品
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.
所以假装 存在出售无法复制的比特位的可能 DMCA也把 强制你使用 可破坏设备复制功能的系统定为合法 你买回家的DVD播放器和游戏机 还有电视电脑- 无论买的时候你以为会有什么东西到手-- 都可能被内容供应商破坏 如果他们想以此作为出售给你内容的条件的话 为了确保你不知情 或者说不让他们的条款 对一般性的电子设备适用 他们还规定 重新设置内容的复制性设置 也是违法的 DMCA标志着 媒体行业 放弃了用法律手段 来区分合法和非法复制 而是采用技术手段 来防止复制
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产生了很多复杂的作用 但在网域限制分享的范围内 它是不适用的 不适用的原因是 互联网的流行及其力量 远超人们的想象 自制录像 爱好者杂志 这些有了互联网 就完全不一样了 我们身处的世界 大多数12岁以上的 美国人 在线上与别人分享 我们分享文稿,图片 声频,视频 分享的东西有些是我们制作的 有些是我们找到的 有些是 在那些找到的东西上加工出来的 这可让媒体行业吓坏了
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.
PIPA和SOPA 可是第二回合 但好比DMCA是外科手术式的 要进入你的电脑 你的电视机,还有游戏机 并且阻止店员 告诉你它们的功能 PIPA和SOPA就好比是核武器 他们要插手世界上每一个角落 去审查内容 现在用于此目的的机制 是移除任何一个 指向IP地址的人 把他们移出搜索引擎 移出线上目录 从用户名单里删除 因为线上内容的最大生产者 既不是谷歌也不是雅虎 而是我们 是我们被管制了 因为说到底 实施 PIPA和SOPA的真正威胁 是我们与他人分享的能力
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.
PIPA和SOPA是在逆行倒施 把一个几百年来的法律概念 及“无罪推定”的概念 反过来- 变成“有罪推定” 除非你能 证明你分享的东西 是我们允许的 否则就不能分享 这样一来,区分有罪无罪的证据负担 就落到了我们身上 以及那些 提供我们分享功能的服务商身上 就算一名使用者 只需一毛钱成本来管制 那么成千上万的使用者 无疑会压垮一个服务商
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.
这就是他们理想的互联网 想象一下这个标示随处可见的样子- 除了想象它不是叫学院面包房 想象一下如果是YouTube 脸书和推特 如果是TED 因为评论管制的 成本无可估量 SOPA和PIPA的实际效果 和预期效果是不同的 真正的威胁是 供证的逆转 我们突然 成了做贼的 只要我们尝试自由地创作 和分享 而提供此功能的人们 YouTube,脸书,推特或者TED此类种种 就不得不 管制我们 或者被牵连构成间接侵权
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.
有两件事 你可以来帮助阻止这一切- 一个简单一个复杂 一个容易一个困难 这个简单容易的事就是 如果你是美国公民 告诉你的众议员和参议员 当你看到 共同签署SOPA法案的人 共同签署PIPA法案的人 他们从 传统媒体逐渐地收受了 数以百万的钱财 你没有那么多钱 但你可以告诉那些参议员 提醒他们你握着投票权 你可以要求不被作对一个贼来对待 你可以建议你宁愿要 一个健全的互联网
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.
如果你不是美国公民 你可以告诉你认识的美国公民 劝他们这么做 因为这个虽然看上去是美国国内的问题 但不是的 打击互联网 是不能满足传统媒体产业的 如果他们打击了互联网,每个人都会受到损害 这是容易的这件事 简单的一件事
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.
难的是 因为有更多的还在等着我们 SOPA是COICA的简版 COICA是去年提出的,没有通过 这个源于 DMCA没有能够 禁止分享技术手段的失败 而DMCA又是源于《家庭录制法》 那是让那些公司闻之胆寒的事 因为如果某人 违反了那个条例然后举证 并证明的整个过程 非常麻烦 “我们不太喜欢那么干” 内容提供商如此自述 他们真正想要的是不必那么干 他们不想在合法和非法分享间 有明确的司法界定 他们只是想让分享彻底消失
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和SOPA不是异想天开,不是异常现象 也不是个体事件 它们是给螺丝又上紧了一圈 而这已经持续了二十年 如果我们反抗的话,我希望我们能 还有更多的等着 直到我们能说服国会 处理侵犯版权的做法 应该像处理Napster和YouTube的侵权那样 也就是在民主社会中 通过举证,核对事实 和补救措施评估的审讯的做法 这才是正确的做法
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."
同时 困难之处还有要做好准备 这是PIPA和SOPA的真正要传达的信息 时代华纳曾呼吁 要我们坐回沙发上去 单纯消费-- 别去创作,分享-- 我们应该说“不。”
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)