I want to talk about what we learn from conservatives. And I'm at a stage in life where I'm yearning for my old days, so I want to confess to you that when I was a kid, indeed, I was a conservative. I was a Young Republican, a Teenage Republican, a leader in the Teenage Republicans. Indeed, I was the youngest member of any delegation in the 1980 convention that elected Ronald Reagan to be the Republican nominee for president.
我想告诉大家 我们可以从保守的角度学到什么。 我站在我渴望已久的人生舞台上 坦白的告诉各位 当我还是一个小孩时 我已经是保守派了 我曾经是少年共和党员, 担任过青少年共和党的领袖 实际上,我曾是最年轻的成员 在所有代表团中都是 1980年共和党大会上,罗纳德里根被选中 他被提名为共和党的总统候选人
Now, I know what you're thinking. (Laughter) You're thinking, "That's not what the Internets say." You're thinking, "Wikipedia doesn't say this fact." And indeed, this is just one of the examples of the junk that flows across the tubes in these Internets here. Wikipedia reports that this guy, this former congressman from Erie, Pennsylvania was, at the age of 20, one of the youngest people at the Republican National Convention, but it's just not true. (Laughter) Indeed, it drives me so nuts, let me just change this little fact here. (Laughter) (Applause) All right. Okay, so ... perfect. Perfect. (Laughter) Okay, speaker Lawrence Lessig, right. Okay. Finally, truth will be brought here. Okay, see? It's done. It's almost done. Here we go. "... Youngest Republican," okay, we're finished. That's it. Please save this. Great, here we go. And ... Wikipedia is fixed, finally. Okay, but no, this is really besides the point.
现在我知道你们在想什么。 (笑声) 你们在想:“网上可没这么说。” 你们会想:“维基百科上没有提到呀。” 实际上,这就是一个例子 一个网上垃圾信息泛滥的例子 在互联网上 维基百科记载了这个家伙, 这位来自伊利市的前宾夕法尼亚众议院国会议员 曾在20岁时作为最年轻的参会者之一 参加了共和党全国大会 但这不对。 (笑声) 事实上,这条很让我难受,让我现在就把它纠正过来。 (笑声) (掌声) 好了,这样才完美。 非常好。 (笑声) 好的,演讲者劳伦斯莱斯格,对了。 好。 最后,真相将被写到这里。 看到没?完成了,差不多了,我们继续。 “最年轻的共和党员” 很好,我们搞订了。 请保存。 这样就可以了。 维基百科最终还是被修正了 好吧,这已超出我们的话题了。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
But the thing I want you to think about when we think about conservatives -- not so much this issue of the 1980 convention -- the thing to think about is this: They go to church. Now, you know, I mean, a lot of people go to church. I'm not talking about that only conservatives go to church. And I'm not talking about the God thing. I don't want to get into that, you know; that's not my point. They go to church, by which I mean, they do lots of things for free for each other. They hold potluck dinners. Indeed, they sell books about potluck dinners. They serve food to poor people. They share, they give, they give away for free. And it's the very same people leading Wall Street firms who, on Sundays, show up and share. And not only food, right.
但我希望大家想一想当我们想到保守- 不过多涉及到这个1980年大会上的问题- 我们考虑以下这个问题: 他们去教堂。 你知道有很多人去教堂。 我不是说只有保守派才去教堂。 我也不是在谈神和信仰。 我不想讨论那些,你们知道那不是我今天的重点。 他们去教堂,我指的是, 他们为其他人做了很多事,并且是免费的。 他们准备免费晚餐 当然,他们会出售关于免费信徒晚餐的书籍 他们为穷人提供食物。 他们分享。他们奉献, 他们无私奉献。 而且同样是这些人 领导着华尔街上的公司 到了礼拜天,去教会 去分享。 而且不仅是食物。
These very same people are strong believers, in lots of contexts, in the limits on the markets. They are in many important places against markets. Indeed, they, like all of us, celebrate this kind of relationship. But they're very keen that we don't let money drop into that relationship, else it turns into something like this. They want to regulate us, those conservatives, to stop us from allowing the market to spread in those places. Because they understand: There are places for the market and places where the market should not exist, where we should be free to enjoy the fellowship of others. They recognize: Both of these things have to live together.
这些非常类似的人 有强烈的信仰,在许多的情境中, 在有限的市场下。 他们无处不在 与市场背道而驰 实际上他们和我们一样庆祝这种关系。 但是他们非常敏锐的杜绝我们 让金钱介入这种关系, 否则那将变成这样的东西。 他们想规范我们,那些保守派, 组织我们将市场化的东西扩展到那些地方。 因为他们深知, 有哪里可以有市场 而另外一些地方不应该存在市场, 那儿我们应该保持免费 从而享受彼此间的和谐关系。 他们认识到,市场和非市场必需共存。
And the second great thing about conservatives: they get ecology. Right, it was the first great Republican president of the 20th century who taught us about environmental thinking -- Teddy Roosevelt. They first taught us about ecology in the context of natural resources. And then they began to teach us in the context of innovation, economics. They understand, in that context, "free." They understand "free" is an important essential part of the cultural ecology as well. That's the thing I want you to think about them.
而关于保守的第二伟大的事 他们关注生态 是的,那是20世纪第一位伟大的共和党总统 他教会我们 用环境思维思考,他就是泰迪罗斯福。 他们是第一个让我们了解生态学 在自然资源中的地位。 然后他们开始教我们在大背景中思考 新制度,新经济 他们深刻理解 免费的重要性 同时也是文化生态 的重要组成 那是我想让大家思考的东西
Now, I know you don't believe me, really, here. So here's exhibit number one. I want to share with you my latest hero, Julian Sanchez, a libertarian who works at the, for many people, "evil" Cato Institute. Okay, so Julian made this video. He's a terrible producer of videos, but it's great content, so I'm going to give you a little bit of it. So here he is beginning.
现在我知道 你们在这里,实际上不相信我。 所以这儿给大家看第一个例子。 我想和你们分享我的最新英雄,朱利安桑切斯, 一个自由工作者为大家而工作, “邪恶的”卡托研究所 好,所以朱利安制作了这个短片 他是一个糟糕的视频制作人, 但是内容很棒,所以我给大家分享一点。 这儿是开头。
Julian Sanchez: I'm going to make an observation about the way remix culture seems to be evolving ...
朱利安桑切斯:我将告诉大家一个发现 一个关于混合文化衍化的方式。
Larry Lessig: So what he does is he begins to tell us about these three videos. This is this fantastic Brat Pack remix set to Lisztomania. Which, of course, spread virally. Hugely successful.
拉里莱斯格:所以他在开始告诉我们 关于这三个视频。 这是一个很棒的混音作品 定为李斯特狂 当然传播的很快 取得巨大的成功
(Music) And then some people from Brooklyn saw it. They decided they wanted to do the same. (Music) And then, of course, people from San Fransisco saw it. And San Franciscans thought they had to do the same as well. (Music) And so they're beautiful, but this libertarian has some important lessons he wants us to learn from this. Here's lesson number one.
(音乐) 然后一些来自布鲁克林的人看到了它。 他们决定做一个相同的作品 (音乐) 在然后,当然,是来自旧金山的人们看到了它。 然后旧金山人想着他们必须也做一个同样好的作品。 (音乐) 他们做得相当漂亮,但是这种自由主义 有很多重要的教训值得我们吸取。 第一条。
JS: There's obviously also something really deeply great about this. They are acting in the sense that they're emulating the original mashup. And the guy who shot it obviously has a strong eye and some experience with video editing. But this is also basically just a group of friends having an authentic social moment and screwing around together. It should feel familiar and kind of resonate for anyone who's had a sing-a-long or a dance party with a group of good friends.
朱利安:显而易见这其中有着深刻而伟大的东西。 他们即兴表演 模仿原来的混音 而且拍摄这作品的家伙很有眼光 并有不少视频编辑的经验 但基本上这个作品也只是由一群好朋友 相互有着真实的社交活动 并聚在一起。 这似乎听起来熟悉并且合理 对于那些参加长时间歌唱和舞蹈派对的人们 有着这样一群好友
LL: Or ...
拉里:或者
JS: So that's importantly different from the earlier videos we looked at because here, remix isn't just about an individual doing something alone in his basement; it becomes an act of social creativity. And it's not just that it yields a different kind of product at the end, it's that potentially it changes the way that we relate to each other. All of our normal social interactions become a kind of invitation to this sort of collective expression. It's our real social lives themselves that are transmuted into art.
朱利安:所以与我们看到的早期的视频有很大区别 因为在这里,混合的不仅仅是 一个独立的基本事物; 它成为了一种社会创造力的体现。 并且他不局限在自身 最终诞生一种新的产品, 它具有改变我们相互依赖方式的潜力。 我们所有的社会互动 成为了一种邀请 对于这种集体表达。 这使我们真实社会活了起来 这就转变成了艺术。
LL: And so then, what this libertarian draws from these two points ...
拉里:所以这为自由主义者提出这两点
JS: One remix is about individuals using our shared culture as a kind of language to communicate something to an audience. Stage two, social remix, is really about using it to mediate people's relationships to each other. First, within each video, the Brat Pack characters are used as a kind of template for performing the social reality of each group. But there's also a dialogue between the videos, where, once the basic structure is established, it becomes a kind of platform for articulating the similarities and differences between the groups' social and physical worlds.
朱利安:一种混搭是关于 独立地使用我们共享的文化 好比一种与听众沟通的语言。 第二阶段,社会混搭, 这才是真正吧它当成一种媒介 连接人与人之间的关系。 首先,在这视频中, 后起之秀的角色被当作一种样本 用来表现每个团体的社会现实 但是这些视频之间也存在对话, 一旦基本结构建立起来后, 它就成为了一种平台 做为表述相似与区别的平台 在不同的社团和物理世界中存在。
LL: And then, here's for me, the critical key to what Julian has to say ...
拉里:然后,对我而言, 这个评论的要点是 朱利安必须说。
JS: Copyright policy isn't just about how to incentivize the production of a certain kind of artistic commodity; it's about what level of control we're going to permit to be exercised over our social realities -- social realities that are now inevitably permeated by pop culture. I think it's important that we keep these two different kinds of public goods in mind. If we're only focused on how to maximize the supply of one, I think we risk suppressing this different and richer and, in some ways, maybe even more important one.
朱利安:版权政策不仅仅关于 如何奖励作品的作者 那些特定种类的艺术家团体 它还关系到能控制哪一层面 我们可以允许它们被用来 控制我们的社会现实, 社会现实在现在必然地, 被流行文化渗透。 我认为这很重要 我们在心中保留两种不同的公共物品 如果我们只是将目光放在 供应如何最大化 我认为我们应冒险放弃这一点 区分并且丰富 一些在其他层面看来更重要的东西。
LL: Right. Bingo. Point. Freedom needs this opportunity to both have the commercial success of the great commercial works and the opportunity to build this different kind of culture. And for that to happen, you need ideas like fair use to be central and protected, to enable this kind of innovation, as this libertarian tells us, between these two creative cultures, a commercial and a sharing culture. The point is they, he, here, gets that culture.
拉里:对,正是这点。 自由需要这个机会 获取商业成功 作为商业作品 并且建立不同 种类文化的机会 为了这个目标,你需要 很多点子用来保护公平使用 使得这种启发可能 正如自由主义者告诉我们的, 在这两种创造性的文化之间, 有着一个商业的和另一个可分享的文化 重点是他们,他,这里, 获得那种文化。
Now, my concern is, we Dems, too often, not so much. All right, take for example this great company. In the good old days when this Republican ran that company, their greatest work was work that built on the past, right. All of the great Disney works were works that took works that were in the public domain and remixed them, or waited until they entered the public domain to remix them, to celebrate this add-on remix creativity. Indeed, Mickey Mouse himself, of course, as "Steamboat Willie," is a remix of the then, very dominant, very popular "Steamboat Bill" by Buster Keaton. This man was a remixer extraordinaire. He is the celebration and ideal of exactly this kind of creativity.
现在,我担心的是,我们民主党人, 常常,不是那么多。 好,以这个大公司为例子。 在美好的过去,共和党人曾经经营这个公司, 他们的出色工作建立了过去的辉煌。 所有杰出的迪斯尼作品 都是来源于其他作品 那些作品属于公共领域的并且被重新解构 或者等到他们进入了公有领域再重构他们, 庆祝这个附加的创意 事实上,米老鼠自身出现在 “汽船威利号”的形象 就是借鉴当时非常流行的 “汽船比利号” 由巴斯特·基顿创作 他才是一位杰出的再创作大师 他值得称颂 拥有这种创造力
But then the company passes through this dark stage to this Democrat. Wildly different. This is the mastermind behind the eventual passage of what we call the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, extending the term of existing copyrights by 20 years, so that no one could do to Disney what Disney did to the Brothers Grimm. Now, when we tried to challenge this, going to the Supreme Court, getting the Supreme Court, the bunch of conservatives there -- if we could get them to wake up to this -- to strike it down, we had the assistance of Nobel Prize winners including this right-wing Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman, who said he would join our brief only if the word "no brainer" was in the brief somewhere. (Laughter) But apparently, no brains existed in this place when Democrats passed and signed this bill into law. Now, tiny little quibble of a footnote: Sonny Bono, you might say, was a Republican, but I don't buy it. This guy is no Republican.
但是公司把历史掩盖了 通过政治黑幕背后的交易 给这位民主党人 截然不同的待遇 幕后的罪魁祸首 正是臭名昭著的 松尼波诺著作权期延长法案 将现有的版权年限 延长了20年 所以没有人可以对迪斯尼做 他们曾对格林兄弟所做的事 现在当我们试图挑战这点时 都要去最高法院接受那儿一群保守派的审判 如果我们让他们醒悟过来看到这一点然后推翻它。 我们有诺贝尔得主的帮助 包括这位右翼人士 诺贝尔奖得主,米尔顿弗里德曼 曾说过他将加入我们部门 只要“脑残”这个词 能贴在办公室的某个地方。 (笑声) 但很明显,没有脑残 曾经在这里存在过 当民主党通过并签署法案 将它正式变为法律 现在,我进行一个注解, 松尼波诺,也许你会说,他曾是共和党人, 但是我不买账。 这家伙绝不是共和党。
Okay, for a second example, think about this cultural hero, icon on the Left, creator of this character. Look at the site that he built: "Star Wars" MashUps, inviting people to come and use their creative energy to produce a new generation of attention towards this extraordinarily important cultural icon. Read the license. The license for these remixers assigns all of the rights to the remix back to Lucas. The mashup is owned by Lucas. Indeed, anything you add to the mashup, music you might add, Lucas has a worldwide perpetual right to exploit that for free. There is no creator here to be recognized. The creator doesn't have any rights. The creator is a sharecropper in this story. And we should remember who employed the sharecroppers: the Democrats, right?
好的,举第二个例子, 想一想这个文化英雄, 左派人物, 这个角色的创造者。 看看他建立的网站:“星球大战”恶搞, 邀请人们来这里使用他们的创作激情 去吸引新一代的注意力 对于这个杰出的重要文化象征。 读一下许可证。 对于这些再创作者的许可 赋予了所有权利 混搭作品版权属于卢卡斯 这些混搭是卢卡斯所有的。 实际上,你添加的任何元素, 也许是一段音乐, 卢卡斯有了一个全世界范围的版权 免费的去开拓。 在这里没有公认的创作者。 创作者没有任何权力。 在故事里,创作者成了农民工。 我们应该记住 谁雇佣了这些佃农? 民主党,不是吗?
So the point is the Republicans here recognize that there's a certain need of ownership, a respect for ownership, the respect we should give the creator, the remixer, the owner, the property owner, the copyright owner of this extraordinarily powerful stuff, and not a generation of sharecroppers. Now, I think there are lessons we should learn here, lessons about openness. Our lives are sharing activities, at least in part. Even for the head of Goldman Sachs, at least in part. And for that sharing activity to happen, we have to have well-protected spaces of fair use.
所以要点是共和党在这 认识到有这样的需求 需要所有权 尊重所有权, 我们应该给予创作者的, 再创作者,拥有者,财产所有者, 版权所有者 这个非常棒的玩意 而不是一代佃农。 现在 关于开放的教训。 我们的生命是分享的活动, 至少部分是。 即使是高盛公司的老板, 也有分享的部分。 为了使得这样的分享可以实现,我们必须 保护好公平使用的空间。
That's number one. Number two: This ecology of sharing needs freedom within which to create. Freedom, which means without permission from anyone, the ability to create. And number three: We need to respect the creator, the creator of these remixes through rights that are directly tied to them. Now, this explains the right-wing nonprofit Creative Commons. Actually, it's not a right-wing nonprofit, but of course -- let me just tie it here -- the Creative Commons, which is offering authors this simple way to mark their content with the freedoms they intended to carry.
这是第一点。第二点: 分享的生态环境 需要自由 在自由中创作。 自由意味着没有任何人的允许, 有创作的能力。 第三点:我们需要 尊重创作者, 这些混搭作品的作者 通过将权力 与他们直接相连。 这也可以解释为何右翼会热衷于非盈利 的创意共享(Creativecommons) 实际上,这不只是一个右翼非盈利活动 让我把它联系到 创意共享 即让作者有了这个简单的方法标注他们的内容 在自由的条件下 只要他们想加上。
So that we go from a "all rights reserved" world to a "some rights reserved" world so that people can know the freedoms they have attached to the content, building and creating on the basis of this creative copyrighted work. These tools that we built enable this sharing in parts through licenses that make it clear and a freedom to create without requiring permission first because the permission has already been granted and a respect for the creator because it builds upon a copyright the creator has licensed freely. And it explains the vast right-wing conspiracy that's obviously developed around these licenses, as now more than 350 million digital objects are out there, licensed freely in this way.
所以我们从一个“版权所有”的世界 变为“版权部分所有”的世界 所以大家可以知道他们赋予作品内容的这种自由, 建立和创作 基于这种自由 创新已有版权的作品。 这些我们发明的工具 使得分享成为了一部分 通过许可明确了 自由创作的权力 在没有事先允许的情况下 因为一开始就给予了许可, 以及对原创者的尊重因为它建立在 原创者的版权之上 已经被允许自由使用。 这揭示了泛右翼论阴谋 很明显围绕这些协议不断发展, 至今已有3亿5000万数字作品 存在并允许自由使用 以这样的方式。
Now that picture of an ecology of creativity, the picture of an ecology of balanced creativity, is that the ecology of creativity we have right now? Well, as you all know, not many of us believe we do. I tripped on the reality of this ecology of creativity just last week. I created a video which was based on a Wireside Chat that I'd given, and I uploaded it to YouTube. I then got this email from YouTube weirdly notifying me that there was content in that owned by the mysterious WMG that matched their content ID. So I didn't think much about it.
现在那是一幅创造性生态图, 一幅生态平衡的 由创作环境, 这样的创作生态我们现在拥有了么? 正如大家知道的, 没有几个人相信我们有。 我就在现实的创作环境中栽了个跟头 就在上周。 我制作了一个视频是基于 我的一个演讲 我把它上传到了Youtube 然后我就收到了Youtube发来的电邮 莫名其妙的告知我 这些内容 不可思议的属于WMG公司 因为符合他们作品的特征 我并没怎么当回事
And then on Twitter, somebody said to me, "Your talk on YouTube was DMCA'd. Was that your purpose?" imagining that I had this deep conspiracy to reveal the obvious flaws in the DMCA. I answered, "No." I didn't even think about it. But then I went to the site and all of the audio in my site had been silenced. My whole 45-minute video had been silenced because there were snippets in that video, a video about fair use, that included Warner Music Group music. Now, interestingly, they still sold ads for that music, if you played the silent video. You could still buy the music, but you couldn't hear anything because it had been silenced.
接下来在推特上,有个人和我说, 你在Youube上的谈话被判侵权。你是故意的吗? 想象一下如果我有这样险恶的阴谋 去揭露新千年数字版权法案显而易见的瑕疵。 我答道:“不。”我根本没有想到那样做。 但随后我上了那个网站 我所有的语音被静音了。 我全长45分钟的视频 全部没有声音 因为这里面有一点点内容, 关于公平使用视频, 包含了华纳音乐集团的音乐。 现在,有趣的是, 他们依然为那段音乐卖广告, 如果你播放了那段静音的视频。 你仍然可以购买那段音乐, 但你听不到任何声音 因为被静音了。
So I did what the current regime says I must do to be free to use YouTube to talk about fair use. I went to this site, and I had to answer these questions. And then in an extraordinarily Bart Simpson-like, juvenile way you've actually got to type out these words and get them right to reassert your freedom to speak. And I felt like I was in third grade again. "I will not put tacks on the teacher's chair. I will not put tacks on the teacher's chair." This is absurd. It is outrageous. It is an extraordinary perversion of the system of freedom we should be encouraging.
所以我做了目前政府 让我必须做的 去自由使用 YouTube谈论公平使用。 我打开那个页面,我必须回答这些问题。 然后在一个令人叫绝的的 像巴特·辛普森一样,幼稚的方式 你必须输入这些单词 并得到允许 去宣称你的言论自由 我感到我回到了小学三年级, 我保证我不会把大头钉再放到老师椅子上。 我保证我不会把大头钉再放到老师椅子上。 这很荒唐。 太离奇了。 这是对自由系统的扭曲 我们应该倍受鼓舞
And the question I ask you is: Who's fighting it? Well, interestingly, in the last presidential election, who was the number one, active opponent of this system of regulation in online speech? John McCain. Letter after letter attacking YouTube's refusal to be more respectful of fair use with their extraordinary notice and take down system, that led his campaign so many times to be thrown off the Internet.
我想问的是:“谁在为此而奋斗?” 是的,有趣的是,在上次总统大选中, 谁是头号积极分子 在反对这个行政系统 对在线发言的限制? 是约翰麦凯恩。 一份有一份批评Youube的封锁 倡导更值得尊敬的公平使用 凭借他们杰出的注意力并终止这个系统, 让他的竞选活动无数次的 被因特网抛弃。
Now, that was the story of me then, my good old days of right-wing lunacy. Let me come back to now, now when I'm a little leftist -- I'm certainly left-handed, so at least a lefty -- And I wonder, can we on the Left expect to build this ecology of freedom, now, in a world where we know the extraordinarily powerful influences against it, where even icons of the Left like this entertain and push bills that would effectively ban the requirement of open access for government-funded research? The president, who has supported a process that secretly negotiates agreements, which effectively lock us into the insane system of DMCA that we have adopted and likely lock us down a path of three strikes, you're out that, of course, the rest of the world are increasingly adopting. Not a single example of reform has been produced yet. And we're not going to see this change in this system anytime soon.
现在,讲讲我自己的故事, 我美好的的右派疯狂岁月。 让我回到当下, 现在当我作为一个小小的左倾分子 至少我是一个左撇子 我想知道,我们能否站在左翼 期望去建立一个 自由的生态系统,就现在, 在世界的某个地点 我们知道有股强大的力量 会反对它, 甚至像这位左派的领袖 致力推进法案 有效地禁止那些要求 开放给政府资助地科研? 总统本人,曾支持过 一个秘密协商的进行, 结果把我们困在了一个愚蠢的系统里 即数字千年版权法 我们已被迫适应 并被置于棒球中三震出局的境地 当然越来越多的国家也卷入了这个适应的过程。 没有一例改革的例子 被推动过。 并且我们将看不到任何改变 在这个系统里 至少近期无望。
So here's the lessons of openness that I think we need to learn. Openness is a commitment to a certain set of values. We need to speak of those values. The value of freedom. It's a value of community. It's a value of the limits in regulation. It's a value respecting the creator. Now, if we can learn those values from at least some influences on the Right, if we can take them and incorporate them, maybe we could do a little trade. We learn those values on the Left, and maybe they'll do health care or global warming legislation or something in the Right.
所以这是关于开放的教训 我认为大家都要吸取 开放式一种奉献 奉献一系列的价值。 我们需要强调那些价值。 自由的价值。它具有公共团体的价值。 它具有制约规章的价值。 它具有尊重创造者的价值。 现在,假如我们可以学到这些价值 从右翼那里获得哪怕一点点影响, 假如我们可以争取并加入他们, 也许我们可以做一点交易。 我们从左派(民主党)学到这些价值, 也许他们将对医疗进行改革 或者对全球变暖进行立法等等。
Anyway, please join me in teaching these values.
无论如何,请和我一起 传播这些价值观。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)