(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.
(鼓掌) 我想要跟你們談一些網友創造的內容 我會用三個故事來講同一個主題 告訴你一些 我們怎麼樣開放網友自由創作來做生意 第一個故事
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年,約翰.飛利浦.蘇莎 到了這個地方 美國的首都來談這個科技 他把他稱之為「說話機」 蘇莎其實沒有很喜歡說話機 他說 這些說話機會摧毀這個國家音樂的 藝術發展 我還小的時候,夏天晚上在我家前 有很多年經人 一起唱著流行歌,或是老歌 今天你不論何時何地都可以看到這些「地獄機器」 我們的聲帶都會退化不見,蘇莎這樣說 聲帶會因為演化而被淘汰了 就像人類從人猿演化來的時候丟掉了尾巴
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.
這是我要你注意的景象 這是一個文化的想像 我們可以用現代的電腦術語來說 就是一種「讀--寫」文化 也就是人們關注於創造的文化 還有「再創造」他們的文化,也可以說是讀和寫 蘇莎害怕的是我們會失去這種能力 正因為如此,他才說了這些「地獄機器」會奪走我們這些能力 然後我們就會有「讀寫」文化的相反 我們可以稱為 「只讀」文化 只消費創意的文化 但是消費者不是創造者 是上游主宰下游的文化 是數百萬人的聲帶會就此消失的文化
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.
現在如果我們回顧二十世紀 至少在所謂的「已開發世界」中 很難不說蘇莎是對的 人類文化歷史上 從來沒有這樣專業化、集中的文化 也從沒有過數百萬人的創意 很明顯地不見了 而且是因為這些「地獄機器」才不見了 二十世紀是這樣的時代 在那些我們所熟知的地方 文化從「讀寫」雙向變成只剩下「讀」存在
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.
第二個故事,土地是一種財產 土地是財產,而且受法律保障 就像布雷史東勳爵所說的,土地受到「入侵法」保障 在入侵法歷史上一大部分 這個法律保障土地以下部分 以及土地以上無窮高的部分 這是一個不錯的系統 就歷史上規範土地來說 直到這個科技出現,人們開始出現疑惑 這些東西算是入侵者嗎? 沒有釐清權力就飛越土地 飛過農場,橫貫全國 1945年,最高法院有機會來討論這問題
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.
兩個雞農,湯瑪士李和提尼考斯比 因為這些科技發出強烈不滿 他們抱怨說 他們養的雞會跟著飛機跑 結果飛去撞農場的牆壁 而飛機悠然掠過大地 所以他們引用佈雷史東勳爵說的 飛機侵入了他們的土地 因為古早的法律規定 不可以在沒有經過地主允許的條件下飛越那塊土地 所以這些飛機必須要停飛 最高法院認為這是百年前訂定的事情 道格拉斯大法官如是判 雞農輸掉官司 最高法院說這個保護土地的法條 所講到的天空部分已經不試用於現代社會 要不然國際航班都在討論範圍 那麼就會有數不清的入侵官司了 常識,法律上雖然罕見,但真的是「常識」 (笑) 這個概念如此被否決:常識
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.
最後,在網路之前 最後一次恐怖的內容產業大軍來襲 就是這個科技帶來的恐懼:廣播 一種傳播內容的新方法 所以另外一場關於控制的新戰役 散播內容的生意 那時候真正有的是 控制表演權力的法定企業聯合組織 控制那些音樂可以經由廣播放送 用ASCAP這項技術 他們擁有絕大多數流行內容的獨有執照 他們以此控管 那些第一線的廣播人員 所以在1931年到1939年,它們把使用費率提高到448% 直到廣播人員受不了,團結起來 說「好,我們受夠了」 1939年,律師西尼凱開始做一些事情 叫做廣播音樂法人組織,也就是我們知道的BMI BMI對於藝術非常民主 他在自己的音樂庫中收錄了 包括第一次收錄非裔美人的音樂 但是最重要的還是BMI 採用普羅大眾的作品 幫他們做安排,然後免費發送給他們的訂閱者 所以1940年 當ASCAP揚言要調漲一倍音樂使用費時 大部分的廣播人員轉而投向BMI ASCAP說他們不在乎 他們預期聽眾會抗議 因為最好的音樂已經聽不到了 因為廣播都已經改用次等的BMI 不過聽眾並沒有反抗,而1941年 ASCAP 倒閉了 這裡很重要的一點是 儘管廣播人員 播出那些所謂的次等作品 在那時候,這樣的競爭就足以 終結法定企業聯合對於音樂使用的控管
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.
好了,就這三個故事。現在是我的討論 我認為最重要的是 確認網際網路的影響 是不是像蘇莎所幻想的 是接受「讀寫」文化的機會 數位科技是不是 讓聲帶復活的機會 就像蘇莎大聲疾呼的那樣 網友製造的內容,商業的散播 用像這樣特別有價值的方法 來鼓勵普羅文化 我不是說素人文化 我的意思是說人們創造的文化 為了他們的愛好,而不為錢 我指的是你家小孩無時無刻都在創造的文化 也就是當你想到蘇莎說過的 年輕人聚在一起唱歌 你就應該要了解 你小孩也正在這樣做 把流行歌和老歌 重新混合在一起,創造很不一樣的感覺 那就是他們了解怎樣介入文化 來舉幾個例子好了 來讓我現在談的東西更清楚
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.
第一個例子,有一種東西叫做動畫音樂短片 從電視上把動畫節錄下來 和音樂一起重新編輯 ♫ 這首歌你一定知道「耶穌活著」,先別急 (音樂:「I Will Survive」) (笑) 這是最厲害的 (音樂:「Endless Love」) 我的愛... 我生命中只有你 你是唯一的光明 我最初的愛 我呼吸都是你 我走的每一步都是你 而我 我想和你分享我全部的愛 沒有其他人可以 你的眼睛 告訴我你多在乎我 ♫ 這就是重新混音 (掌聲) 強調這「不是」原曲才是重點 而不是我們所謂的「盜版」 我沒有要討論也沒有要評判 拿別人量販的內容 沒有經過版權所有者同意就散步 我要說的是使用然後「再創作」 用別人的內容,用電子科技 來說不一樣的事情 好,整件事情的重點 並不是你在這邊所看到的技術 因為,當然你在這裡所見的每種技術 都是電視和電影製作上 五十年前就有辦法做的 重要的是現在這種技術已經民主化了 現在只要有錢買1,500美元電腦的人 就能把身邊各種文化的聲音和影像拿來使用 用來說不一樣的事情 這些創意的工具已經變成發聲的工具 是這個世代的文化,這是我們小孩說話的方式 是我們小孩思考的方式,就是你們的小孩 小孩越來越懂電腦技術 他們和自己的關係
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.
回應這用電腦科技的新文化 法律並沒有用基本常識 來面對這場蘇莎復活 反而,版權法的建構 還有電腦科技的建構 當他們互動的時候產生了很多假設 預設這些行為違法 因為如果版權法的中心思想就是要規範「複製」 那麼數位世界中,我們無可逃避的現實是 每使用一次文化,就會造成複製 所以每次使用都需要授權 沒有授權你就是侵略者 你就是侵略者 跟侵略別人土地的那些一樣 常識在這裡還沒有產生反抗的力量 來回應法律提出的回應 回應這種創造 我們卻看到 比反抗更糟的事情 兩邊都有發展出各自極端的想法 回應這種衝突 這種技術和法律之間的衝突
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)
一邊建立新的科技,比如最近出爐的一項科技 可以讓他們 自動把YouTube上面 任何版權內容抓下來 不管有沒有公平使用的概念 這個可能被用在那個內容的蓋念 另外一邊,在我們的小孩中 有越來越多的版權侵犯 是反對版權基本概念的世代 反對版權,而且不相信法律 覺得都是屁 可以忽略,而且只要有機會都可以挑戰 一個極端造成另一個極端 這是我們應該已經學過很多次的事實 而這兩個討論的極端都錯了 那我試著要爭取的平衡 我和其他自由主義者一樣 一開始都會向政府爭取,完全錯了,對吧 (笑)
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.
向法院和立法委員們爭取 試著讓他們讓我們的系統更有道理 失敗了,部分因為法院太消極 部分因為立法委員腐敗 這裡我並不是說他們收受賄賂 阻止改變的發生 而是在說主宰國會運作的經濟影響力 也就是這些立法者不會了解 只會亡羊補牢 所以,我們需要不一樣的,我們需要另一種解決方案 而這裡的方案,我覺得是種個人的方案 一個使年輕合法化的方案 而且了解其中的經濟潛力 就像BMI的故事那樣 因為就像BMI表現出來的 競爭可以達到某些平衡,現在一樣可以發生 我們不需要一個公眾領域來說明 我們需要的是兩種改變
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.
第一,藝術家和創作者接受這個概念 讓他們的作品更自由被取得 所以,比如說,他們可以說他們的作品可以自由取得 只要是非商業性,這種素人使用 但是不可以自由作為任何商業使用 還有第二,我們需要 正在建構這種讀寫文化的商業 擁抱這個機會,讓他可以存在 好讓自由內容,或是比較自由內容的環境 可以在中性的平台上發展 而都可以並存 所以比較自由的,可以和比較不自由的競爭 而在競爭中發展創意的機會 可以互相學習
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.
好,我想要談談 我聽過某個關於這個的計畫 不過我不想要違反TED 第一條販售的戒律 所以我根本不會談到他 而只是要提醒你BMI教我們的事 藝術家的選擇是新科技的關鍵 有新的機會來開創新的事業 我們需要建立藝術家可以做的選擇 如果這些科技有這樣的機會 讓我用我覺得更重要的事情來做總結 比商業更重要太多 那是這一切怎樣和我們小孩連結 我們必須承認他們跟我們不一樣,對吧 (笑) 我們錄混音錄音帶,他們混音音樂 我們看電視,他們做電視
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)
這是科技讓他們不同 當我們看到科技的能 我們必須承認你不能戕害 科技所產生的本能,我們只會讓他有罪 我們無法阻止小孩不用 我們只會使其走入地下 我們不可以讓我們的小孩繼續被動了 我們可以讓他們「盜版」,那樣好嗎? 我們活在一個奇怪的時代,一個禁令的時代 在我們生活中的許多領域 我們處處違反著法律 一般人違法著過生活 而那就是我、我們對我們小孩做的事 他們過著生活,並且知道這是違法的 這樣的認知非常具有腐蝕性 極端的迂腐 而在民主中我們應該能做得更好 做得更好,就算不是為了生意,至少為了孩子吧 謝謝你們 (掌聲)