(Applause) I want to talk to you a little bit about user-generated content. I'm going to tell you three stories on the way to one argument that's going to tell you a little bit about how we open user-generated content up for business. So, here's the first story.
(Aplaus) Tahan teile pisut rääkida kasutaja loodud sisust. Räägin teile ühe väite poole liikudes kolm lugu, mis räägivad teile pisut sellest, kuidas me avame kasutaja loodud sisu ärile. Nii, siin on esimene lugu.
1906. This man, John Philip Sousa, traveled to this place, the United States Capitol, to talk about this technology, what he called the, quote, "talking machines." Sousa was not a fan of the talking machines. This is what he had to say. "These talking machines are going to ruin artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy, in front of every house in the summer evenings, you would find young people together singing the songs of the day, or the old songs. Today, you hear these infernal machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal chord left," Sousa said. "The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."
1906. See mees, John Philip Sousa, reisis Ühendriikide Kapitooliumi, et rääkida tehnoloogiast, mida tema nimetas, tsiteerin, “rääkivateks masinateks.” Sousa polnud rääkivate masinate fänn. Siin on, mida tal oli öelda. “Need rääkivad masinad hävitavad selle maa muusika kunstilise arengu. Kui ma olin väike poiss, võis suveõhtuti leida iga maja ees noori inimesi koos, laulmas ajakohaseid või vanu laule. Tänapäeval kuuled sa neid põrgumasinaid mängimas ööd ja päevad. Meile ei jää häälepaelagi alles,” ütles Sousa. "Häälepaelad kõrvaldatakse evolutsiooni protsessi käigus, nagu inimese sabagi, kui ta ahvist arenes."
Now, this is the picture I want you to focus on. This is a picture of culture. We could describe it using modern computer terminology as a kind of read-write culture. It's a culture where people participate in the creation and the re-creation of their culture. In that sense, it's read-write. Sousa's fear was that we would lose that capacity because of these, quote, "infernal machines." They would take it away. And in its place, we'd have the opposite of read-write culture, what we could call read-only culture. Culture where creativity was consumed but the consumer is not a creator. A culture which is top-down, owned, where the vocal chords of the millions have been lost.
Nüüd ma tahan, et te pööraksite tähelepanu sellele pildile. See on pilt kultuurist. Me võiksime seda kirjeldada kasutades moodsat arvuti terminoloogiat - nagu mingit read-write kultuuri. See on kultuur, kus inimesed osalevad oma kultuuri loomises ja taasloomises. Selles mõttes on see read-write. Sousa hirm oli, et me kaotame selle võime nende, tsiteerin, “põrgumasinate” tõttu. Nad võtaks selle ära. Ja selle asemele tekiks read-write kultuuri vastand, mida me võiksime nimetada read-only kultuuriks. Kultuur, kus loovust tarbiti, ent tarbija ei ole looja. Kultuur, mis on ladviku käes, omatud, kus miljonite häälepaelad on kaduma läinud.
Now, as you look back at the twentieth century, at least in what we think of as the, quote, "developed world" -- hard not to conclude that Sousa was right. Never before in the history of human culture had it been as professionalized, never before as concentrated. Never before has creativity of the millions been as effectively displaced, and displaced because of these, quote, "infernal machines." The twentieth century was that century where, at least for those places we know the best, culture moved from this read-write to read-only existence.
Nüüd, vaadates tagasi 20ndale sajandile, vähemalt sellele, mida me peame, tsiteerin, “arenenud maailmaks,” on raske mitte järeldada, et Sousa’l oli õigus. Mitte kunagi varem inimkultuuri ajaloo jooksul pole see olnud nii professionaliseeritud, mitte kunagi varem nii kontsentreeritud. Mitte kunagi varem pole miljonite loovus olnud nii efektiivselt ümberpaigutatud, ja ümberpaigutatud just nende, tsiteerin, “põrgumasinate” poolt. 20. sajand oli sajand, mil, vähemalt nendes kohtades, mida me teame kõige paremini, liikus kultuur sellest read-write eksistentsist read-only eksistentsi.
So, second. Land is a kind of property -- it is property. It's protected by law. As Lord Blackstone described it, land is protected by trespass law, for most of the history of trespass law, by presuming it protects the land all the way down below and to an indefinite extent upward. Now, that was a pretty good system for most of the history of the regulation of land, until this technology came along, and people began to wonder, were these instruments trespassers as they flew over land without clearing the rights of the farms below as they traveled across the country? Well, in 1945, Supreme Court got a chance to address that question.
Nüüd teiseks. Maa on teatud tüüpi omand - see on omand. See on kaitstud seadusega. Nagu Lord Blackstone seda kirjeldas, on maa kaitstud läbikäiguseadusega, enamuse läbikäiguseaduse ajaloost eeldades, et see kaitseb maad lõpuni alla ja lõputult üles. No see oli päris hea süsteem enamuse selle maa regulatsiooni ajaloo vältel, kuni see tehnoloogia saabus ja inimesed hakkasid pead murdma, kas need instrumendid on sissetungijad, kui nad üle maa lendasid ega kooskõlastanud seda allolevate taludega, lennates üle kogu riigi. Igatahes aastal 1945 sai Ülemkohus võimaluse sellele küsimusele vastata.
Two farmers, Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby, who raised chickens, had a significant complaint because of these technologies. The complaint was that their chickens followed the pattern of the airplanes and flew themselves into the walls of the barn when the airplanes flew over the land. And so they appealed to Lord Blackstone to say these airplanes were trespassing. Since time immemorial, the law had said, you can't fly over the land without permission of the landowner, so this flight must stop. Well, the Supreme Court considered this 100-years tradition and said, in an opinion written by Justice Douglas, that the Causbys must lose. The Supreme Court said the doctrine protecting land all the way to the sky has no place in the modern world, otherwise every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense, a rare idea in the law, but here it was. Common sense -- (Laughter) -- Revolts at the idea. Common sense.
Kahel talunikul, Thomas Lee’l ja Tinie Causby’l, kes kasvatasid kanu, oli oluline kaebus nende tehnoloogiate tõttu. Kaebus oli, et nende kanad järgisid lennukite kulgu ja lennutasid ennast vastu lauta, kui lennukid üle maa lendasid. Ja nii nad pöördusid nõudega Lord Blackstone’i poole, öeldes, et need lennukid olid sissetungijad. Aegade algusest peale oli seadus öelnud, et ei tohi lennata üle maa ilma maaomaniku loata, seega, see lendamine peab lõppema. No Ülemkohus kaalutles seda 100-aastast traditsiooni ja ütles, Justice Douglas’e poolt kirjutatud arvamuses, et Causby’d peavad kaotama. Ülemkohus ütles, et doktriin, mis kaitseb maad lõputult taevasse, ei oma kohta moodsas maailmas, muidu annaks iga transkontinentaalne lend aluse muuta operaator lõputute läbikäiguseaduse hagide subjektiks. Terve mõistus, harv idee seaduses, aga seal ta oli, terve mõistus. (Naer) Terve mõistus on selle mõtte vastu. Terve mõistus.
Finally. Before the Internet, the last great terror to rain down on the content industry was a terror created by this technology. Broadcasting: a new way to spread content, and therefore a new battle over the control of the businesses that would spread content. Now, at that time, the entity, the legal cartel, that controlled the performance rights for most of the music that would be broadcast using these technologies was ASCAP. They had an exclusive license on the most popular content, and they exercised it in a way that tried to demonstrate to the broadcasters who really was in charge. So, between 1931 and 1939, they raised rates by some 448 percent, until the broadcasters finally got together and said, okay, enough of this. And in 1939, a lawyer, Sydney Kaye, started something called Broadcast Music Inc. We know it as BMI. And BMI was much more democratic in the art that it would include within its repertoire, including African American music for the first time in the repertoire. But most important was that BMI took public domain works and made arrangements of them, which they gave away for free to their subscribers. So that in 1940, when ASCAP threatened to double their rates, the majority of broadcasters switched to BMI. Now, ASCAP said they didn't care. The people will revolt, they predicted, because the very best music was no longer available, because they had shifted to the second best public domain provided by BMI. Well, they didn't revolt, and in 1941, ASCAP cracked. And the important point to recognize is that even though these broadcasters were broadcasting something you would call second best, that competition was enough to break, at that time, this legal cartel over access to music.
Viimaks. Enne internetti oli viimane suur terror, mis sadas meediatööstuse kaela, loodud selle tehnoloogia poolt: ringhääling. Uus moodus sisu levitada ja seega uus lahing kontrolli üle äris, mis sisu levitama hakkaks. Nüüd, sel ajal entiteet - seaduslik kartell, mis kontrollis esinemisõigusi enamuse muusika üle, mis oleks eetrisse sattunud kasutades neid tehnoloogiaid, oli ASCAP. Neil oli eksklusiivne litsents kõige populaarsema sisu üle ja nad kasutasid seda nii, et demonstreerida ringhäälingutele, kes tegelikult asja juhib. Seega, 1931 ja 1939 vahel tõstsid nad tariife 448%, kuni ringhäälingud said lõpuks kokku ja ütlesid, hea küll, aitab sellest. Ning aastal 1939 alustas jurist Sydney Kaye midagi nimega Broadcast Music Incorporated. Me teame seda kui BMI. Ja BMI oli hulga demokraatlikum kunsti osas, mida ta kaasas oma repertuaari, lisades esmakordselt Afroameerika muusika oma repertuaari. Aga kõige tähtsam oli, et BMI võttis vaba kasutuse töid ja tegi nendest kokkuleppeid, mida nad andsid ära tasuta oma tellijatele. Nii et 1940. aastal, kui ASCAP ähvardas oma tariife kahekordistada, läks enamus kanaleid üle BMI’sse. Nii, ASCAP ütles, et neil on ükskõik. Inimesed hakkavad mässama, ennustasid nad, kuna parim muusika pole enam kättesaadav, sest nad olid valinud paremuselt teise vaba kasutuse domeeni, mida pakkus BMI. No nad ei hakanud mässama ning aastal 1941 ASCAP murdus. Oluline on siinkohal mõista, et kuigi need jaamad lasid eetrisse midagi, mida võiks kutsuda paremuselt teiseks, oli see konkurents piisav, et murda tol ajal see muusikale juurdepääsu piirav seaduslik kartell.
Okay. Three stories. Here's the argument. In my view, the most significant thing to recognize about what this Internet is doing is its opportunity to revive the read-write culture that Sousa romanticized. Digital technology is the opportunity for the revival of these vocal chords that he spoke so passionately to Congress about. User-generated content, spreading in businesses in extraordinarily valuable ways like these, celebrating amateur culture. By which I don't mean amateurish culture, I mean culture where people produce for the love of what they're doing and not for the money. I mean the culture that your kids are producing all the time. For when you think of what Sousa romanticized in the young people together, singing the songs of the day, of the old songs, you should recognize what your kids are doing right now. Taking the songs of the day and the old songs and remixing them to make them something different. It's how they understand access to this culture. So, let's have some very few examples to get a sense of what I'm talking about here.
Nonii. Kolm lugu. Siit tuleb väide. Minu arvates on kõige olulisem asi ära tunda selle juures, mida see internet teeb, selle võimalust taaselustada see read-write kultuur, millest Sousa romantiseeris. Digitaalne tehnoloogia on võimalus taaselustada need häälepaelad, millest ta nii kirglikult Kongressile rääkis. Kasutaja loodud sisu, levides ärides nõnda erakordselt väärtuslikel viisidel, tähistamas amatöörkultuuri. Selle all ei pea ma silmas algajalikku kultuuri, ma pean silmas kultuuri, mida inimesed loovad armastusest selle tegevuse vastu ja mitte raha pärast. Ma pean silmas kultuuri, mida teie lapsed loovad kogu aeg. Sest kui te mõtlete, millest Sousa romantiseeris noortes, laulmas koos tänapäevaseid laule, ja vanadest lauludest, peaksite te ära tundma selle, mida teie lapsed teevad just praegu. Võttes tänapäeva laulud ja vanad laulud ja remiksides neid, tehes neid millekski erinevaks. Nii mõistavad nad juurdepääsu sellele kultuurile. Seega, võtame mõned üksikud näited, et saaksite aru, millest ma siin räägin.
Here's something called Anime Music Video, first example, taking anime captured from television re-edited to music tracks. (Music) This one you should be -- confidence. Jesus survives. Don't worry. (Music) (Laughter) And this is the best. (Music) My love ... There's only you in my life ... The only thing that's bright ... My first love ... You're every breath that I take ... You're every step I make ... And I .... I want to share all my love with you ... No one else will do ... And your eyes ... They tell me how much you care ... (Music) So, this is remix, right? (Applause) And it's important to emphasize that what this is not is not what we call, quote, "piracy." I'm not talking about nor justifying people taking other people's content in wholesale and distributing it without the permission of the copyright owner. I'm talking about people taking and recreating using other people's content, using digital technologies to say things differently. Now, the importance of this is not the technique that you've seen here. Because, of course, every technique that you've seen here is something that television and film producers have been able to do for the last 50 years. The importance is that that technique has been democratized. It is now anybody with access to a $1,500 computer who can take sounds and images from the culture around us and use it to say things differently. These tools of creativity have become tools of speech. It is a literacy for this generation. This is how our kids speak. It is how our kids think. It is what your kids are as they increasingly understand digital technologies and their relationship to themselves.
Siin on miski, mida kutsutakse Anima Muusika Video, esimene näide, võttes anima televisioonist ja redigeerides selle uuesti muusikalugudele. (Muusika) Seda te peaksite – enesekindlust. Jeesus jääb elama. Ärge muretsege. (Muusika: ”I Will Survive” Gloria Gaynor) (Naer) Ja see on parim. (Muusika: ”Endless Love” Lionel Ritche ja Diana Ross) Mu arm ... Ainult sina oled mu elus … Ainus, mis on ere … Mu esimene armastus … Oled mu iga hingetõmme … Oled mu iga samm … Ja mina ... Mina tahan oma armastust sinuga jagada … Keegi teine pole see … Ja sinu silmad ... Nad räägivad, kui palju sa hoolid … (Muusika) Niisiis see on remiks, eksole? (Aplaus) Oluline on rõhutada, et see ei ole see, mida me nimetame, tsiteerin, “piraatluseks”. Ma ei räägi ega õigusta inimesi, kes võtavad teiste inimeste sisu ja panevad selle hulgimüüki ja jagavad seda ilma autoriõiguse omaja loata. Ma räägin inimestest, kes võtavad ja loovad uuesti, kasutades teiste inimeste loodud sisu, kasutades digitaalset tehnoloogiat, et öelda asju teisiti. Nii, selle tähtsus ei ole see tehnika, mida te siin nägite. Sest loomulikult on iga tehnika, mida te siin nägite, olnud miski, mida televisioon ja filmitootjad on olnud võimelised tegema viimased 50 aastat. Tähtis on, et see tehnika on demokratiseeritud. Nüüd võib igaüks, kel on juurdepääs 1500-dollarilisele arvutile, võtta helisid ja pilte meid ümbritsevast kultuurist ja kasutada neid, et öelda asju teisiti. Need loovuse riistad on saanud kõne riistadeks. See on selle generatsiooni kirjaoskus. See on kuidas meie lapsed räägivad. See on kuidas meie lapsed mõtlevad; see on mis teie lapsed on kui nad üha enam mõistavad digitaalseid tehnoloogiaid ja nende suhet endiga.
Now, in response to this new use of culture using digital technologies, the law has not greeted this Sousa revival with very much common sense. Instead, the architecture of copyright law and the architecture of digital technologies, as they interact, have produced the presumption that these activities are illegal. Because if copyright law at its core regulates something called copies, then in the digital world the one fact we can't escape is that every single use of culture produces a copy. Every single use therefore requires permission; without permission, you are a trespasser. You're a trespasser with about as much sense as these people were trespassers. Common sense here, though, has not yet revolted in response to this response that the law has offered to these forms of creativity. Instead, what we've seen is something much worse than a revolt. There's a growing extremism that comes from both sides in this debate, in response to this conflict between the law and the use of these technologies.
Nii, vastuseks sellele uuele kultuurikasutusele, mis kasutab digitaalset tehnoloogiat, pole seadus Sousa taaselavdamist tervitanud just eriti ohtra terve mõistusega. Selle asemel on autoriõiguse seaduse arhitektuur ja digitaalse tehnoloogia arhitektuur vastastikuselt toimides loonud eelduse, et need tegevused on illegaalsed. Kuna kui autoriõiguse seadus reguleerib põhitasandil miskit nimega koopiad, siis digitaalses maailmas on üks vältimatu fakt, et iga kultuuri kasutus loob koopia. Iga kasutus vajab seetõttu luba; ilma selle loata oled sa sissetungija. Sa oled sissetungija umbes samamoodi, nagu olid nood inimesed sissetungijad. Terve mõistus pole siinkohal siiski veel mässama hakanud vastuseks seaduse pakutud vastusele seda tüüpi loovusele. Selle asemel, mida me oleme näinud on miski palju halvem kui mäss. See on kasvav ekstremism, mis tuleb selle debati mõlemalt poolelt, vastuseks sellele konfliktile seaduste ja nende tehnoloogiate kasutamise vahel.
One side builds new technologies, such as one recently announced that will enable them to automatically take down from sites like YouTube any content that has any copyrighted content in it, whether or not there's a judgment of fair use that might be applied to the use of that content. And on the other side, among our kids, there's a growing copyright abolitionism, a generation that rejects the very notion of what copyright is supposed to do, rejects copyright and believes that the law is nothing more than an ass to be ignored and to be fought at every opportunity possible. The extremism on one side begets extremism on the other, a fact we should have learned many, many times over, and both extremes in this debate are just wrong. Now, the balance that I try to fight for, I, as any good liberal, try to fight for first by looking to the government. Total mistake, right? (Laughter)
Üks pool ehitab uusi tehnoloogiaid, nagu viimati välja kuulutatu, mis võimaldab neil lehtedelt nagu YouTube automaatselt maha võtta iga materjali, milles on mingi osa autoriõigusega kaitstud, hoolimata sellest, kas seal on hinnang õiglasele kasutusele, mida vöiks rakendada selle materjali kasutamiseks. Ja teisel pool, meie laste seas, on kasvav autoriõiguse ümberlükkamine, generatsioon, mis hülgab just selle, mida autoriõigus peaks tegema, hülgab autoriõiguse ja usub, et seadus pole muud kui eesel, keda ignoreerida ja kellega võidelda igal võimalusel. Ekstremism ühel poolel sigitab ekstremismi teisel pool, fakt, mida me oleksime pidanud õppima mitu, mitu korda ning mõlemad ekstreemsused selles debatis on lihtsalt valed. Nüüd see tasakaal, mille nimel ma katsun võidelda, – mina, nagu iga hea liberaal proovib võidelda esmalt vaadates valitsuse poole. Täielik viga, eks? (Naer)
Looked first to the courts and the legislatures to try to get them to do something to make the system make more sense. It failed partly because the courts are too passive, partly because the legislatures are corrupted, by which I don't mean that there's bribery operating to stop real change, but more the economy of influence that governs how Congress functions means that policymakers here will not understand this until it's too late to fix it. So, we need something different, we need a different kind of solution. And the solution here, in my view, is a private solution, a solution that looks to legalize what it is to be young again, and to realize the economic potential of that, and that's where the story of BMI becomes relevant. Because, as BMI demonstrated, competition here can achieve some form of balance. The same thing can happen now. We don't have a public domain to draw upon now, so instead what we need is two types of changes.
Vaatasin esmalt kohtu ja seadusandliku võimu poole, et proovida nad panna tegema midagi, mis süsteemi mõistlikumaks teeks. See kukkus läbi osaliselt, kuna kohtud on liiga passiivsed, ja osaliselt, kuna seadusandlik võim on korrumpeerunud, mille all ma ei pea silmas, et on altkäemaksu, mis tegutseb takistamaks tõelist muutust, vaid pigem mõjutuste majanduskorda, mis juhib Kongressi tööd, tähendades, et seaduseloojad ei mõista seda olukorda, kuni on liiga hilja, et seda parandada. Seega on meil vaja midagi erinevat, me vajame teistsugust lahendust, ja see lahendus siin, minu arvates, see on privaatne lahendus, lahendus, mis proovib uuesti noor olemist seadustada ja mõista selle majanduslikku potentsiaali, ning see on koht, kus BMI lugu muutub asjakohaseks. Sest nagu BMI demonstreeris, võib konkurents siin saavutada teatud tasakaalu. Sama asi võib juhtuda praegu. Meil pole vabakasutuse domeeni, millele praegu tugineda ja mida me selle asemel vajame, on kahte sorti muutused.
First, that artists and creators embrace the idea, choose that their work be made available more freely. So, for example, they can say their work is available freely for non-commercial, this amateur-type of use, but not freely for any commercial use. And second, we need the businesses that are building out this read-write culture to embrace this opportunity expressly, to enable it, so that this ecology of free content, or freer content, can grow on a neutral platform where they both exist simultaneously, so that more-free can compete with less-free, and the opportunity to develop the creativity in that competition can teach one the lessons of the other.
Esmalt, et artistid ja loojad võtaks omaks selle idee valida, et nende looming tehtaks vabamalt kättesaadavaks. Näiteks, nad võivad öelda, et nende looming on vabalt kättesaadav mittekommertsialaseks, selleks amatöör-tüüpi kasutuseks, aga mitte vabalt igasuguseks kommertsiaalseks kasutuseks. Ja teiseks, meil on vaja, et need ärid, mis arendavad seda read-write kultuuri, võtaks selgelt omaks selle võimaluse, võimaldaksid seda, nii, et see vaba sisu ökoloogia, või vabam sisu, saaks kasvada neutraalsel platvormil, kus nad mõlemad eksisteerivad samaaegselt, nii et rohkem vaba saab konkureerida vähem vabaga ja võimalus arendada loovust selles konkurentsis saab õpetada ühele teise õppetunnid.
Now, I would talk about one particular such plan that I know something about, but I don't want to violate TED's first commandment of selling, so I'm not going to talk about this at all. I'm instead just going to remind you of the point that BMI teaches us. That artist choice is the key for new technology having an opportunity to be open for business, and we need to build artist choice here if these new technologies are to have that opportunity. But let me end with something I think much more important -- much more important than business. It's the point about how this connects to our kids. We have to recognize they're different from us. This is us, right? (Laughter) We made mixed tapes; they remix music. We watched TV; they make TV.
Nüüd ma räägiks ühest konkreetsest sellisest plaanist, millest ma midagi tean, aga ma ei taha rikkuda TED’i esimest käsku mitte müüa, seega ei räägi ma sellest üldse. Selle asemel ma tuletan teile meelde mõtet, mida BMI meile õpetab. Et artistide valik on võti uue tehnoloogia võimalusele olla avatud ärile ja me peame siinkohal ehitama artistide valikuid, kui need uued tehnoloogiad selle võimaluse saavad. Aga las ma lõpetan minu arvates millegi palju olulisemaga – palju olulisemaga, kui seda on äri. See on mõte sellest, kuidas see seostub meie lastega. Me peame mõistma, et nad on meist erinevad. Need oleme meie, eks? (Naer) Meie tegime miksitud kassette; nemad remiksivad muusikat. Meie vaatasime televisiooni; nemad teevad televisiooni.
It is technology that has made them different, and as we see what this technology can do, we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces. We can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it. We can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again. We can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good? We live in this weird time. It's kind of age of prohibitions, where in many areas of our life, we live life constantly against the law. Ordinary people live life against the law, and that's what I -- we are doing to our kids. They live life knowing they live it against the law. That realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting. And in a democracy, we ought to be able to do better. Do better, at least for them, if not for opening for business. Thank you very much. (Applause)
See on tehnoloogia, mis on nad erinevaks teinud ja nagu me näeme, mis see tehnoloogia võib teha, peame me mõistma, et ei saa tappa tehnoloogia loodud instinkti. Me saame seda ainult kriminaliseerida. Me ei sa oma lapsi peatada seda kasutamast. Me saame selle ainult põranda alla suruda. Me ei saa oma lapsi uuesti pasiivseteks muuta. Me saame nad ainult muuta, tsiteerin, “piraatideks”. Ja kas see on hea? Me elame sellel imelikul ajal. See on teatav keeluaeg, kus me oma elu paljudes valdkondades, elame pidevalt seadusevastaselt. Tavalised inimesed elavad elu seadusevastaselt, ja see on mida mina – meie teeme oma lastega. Nad elavad elu teades, et nad elavad seda seadusevastaselt. Selle mõistmine on erakordselt söövitav, erakordselt laostav. Ja demokraatias peaksime me olema võimelised paremaks. Võimelised paremaks, vähemalt nende jaoks, kui mitte avamiseks ärile. Tänan väga. (Aplaus)