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.
我要談論的是 我們可以從保守派學到什麼。 我現在很懷念以前的日子, 所以我要向你們承認 我還是個小孩的時候, 我確實是一位保守派成員 我曾經是一位青少年共和黨員, 是青少共和黨員的領導著。 事實上,在1980的大會中 Ronald Regan被提名為 代表共和黨的總統競選者時, 我是被委派的人當中最年輕的領導者。
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.
我知道你們在想什麼 (笑) 你們在想:網路上不是這樣說的 你們在想:維基百科並沒有說這件事。 事實上,這只是許多 流竄在網路上那些垃圾傳言 的其中一則而已。 維基百科報導這個傢伙, 這個來自Pennsylvania州的前國會議員 在20歲的時候 是共和黨全國代表大會中最年輕成員之一 但這根本不是真的 (笑) 事實上這徹底惹毛我了,讓我來修改一下這段話吧。 (笑) (鼓掌) 好了。這樣就對了! 很完美。 (笑) 好,演講者Lawrence Lessig,對吧? 好的。 終於,事實要被帶來這了。 好的,看到了嗎?快好了,就快好了。看吧。 「...最年輕的共和黨員」好的,這樣就好可以了。 就這樣。然後存檔。 這樣就可以了。 那麼,維基百科上的錯誤就更正了,終於阿。 好的,但並不是這樣的,這是完全跟主題無關。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
但是其實當我們說到保守派時我要你們想想-- 1980年時大會並不是個熱門議題 -- 我們要探討的事這個: 他們上教堂。 你知道的,我是指許多人都上教堂。 我並不是指只有那些保守派才上教堂。 我也不是要談論上帝。 我不想說太多,你知道的,那不是我要說得重點。 我說到他們會上教堂的意思是, 他們免費的為彼此做很多事。 他們舉辦共享餐會。 事實上,他們還販售關於共享餐會的書。 他們提供免費食物給窮困的人。 他們分享,他們給予。 他們無償的付出。 並且,也同樣是這群人 領導著華爾街的公司 這些人,在星期日,會現身 並分享。 而且,也並不只是分享食物。
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.
同樣的這一群人 在市場的限制下, 是堅守信念的人。 他們在很多重要的大會 對抗現有的市場。 事實上,他們就像我們所有人一樣,頌揚這種交際關係 但他們很敏銳的堤防, 不讓金錢介入這種關係之中, 否則事情會變成像這個樣子 那些保守派的,想要控制我們, 想要阻止我們允許市場擴展到其他地方。 因為他們明白, 有些地方是容許這個市場存在的, 然而也有一些地方是這些市場不該存在的。 這些地方應該是自由且免費的, 是彼此享受情誼的地方。 他們知道,這兩件事情都是必不可缺的。
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.
然後,第二件有關保守派的一個很了不起的是: 他們了解這個生態。 沒錯,這是第一個20世紀的偉大共和黨總統 教導了我們 環境生態保護 --西奧多·羅斯福(Teddy Roosevelt.) 他們首先教導我們這個生態 有關地球資源。 燃後他們開始教導我們有關 創新力和經濟。 他們了解,在那些情況下-- 是免費的 -- 他們了解免費和分享是一個很重要的 也是不可或缺的 文化生態之一。 這就是我想要你們去思考有關他們的事。
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.
現在我知道, 我說這個,你們不相信我。 所以這是第一場展示會。 我想要和你們分享我最近的一位英雄, Julian Sanchez, 他是一位圖書館管理員,但是很多人都認為 他在一個叫做"邪惡"的卡托研究所(Cato Institute)的地方工作。 因為這樣Julian做了一部短片。 他是一個很糟的短片編輯者, 但是內容卻是很棒,所以我現在要給你們看看其中一小部分。 就從這裡開始吧。
Julian Sanchez: I'm going to make an observation about the way remix culture seems to be evolving ...
Julian Sanchez:我現在要來做一項觀察 混搭文化是如何發展的...
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.
Larry Lessig:所以他的做法就是先告訴我們 三部短片。 這是一個很酷的小子包混音(brat pack remix) 被稱為Lisztomania 當然,這很快就在網路上流傳開了。 非常非常的成功。
(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.
(音樂) 然後有一些人在布魯克林(Brooklyn)看到了這短片 他們決定也要這樣做。 (音樂) 然後,有人在舊金山(San Fransisco)也看到了這部短片。 舊金山的人認為他們也要這樣做部短片。 (音樂) 這些短片多麼美麗,但是這位圖書管理員 有幾個很重要的訊息,想要我們從這學習。 這是第一個:
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.
JS:很顯然的,這是一個能讓你打從心裡覺得很棒的東西。 他們以感覺來模仿 原版的混搭音樂。 做這影片的人很明顯的有一種很強的觀察力 還有一些影片編輯的經驗 但是,基本上,這只是一群朋友 處於一個真實的社交狀態 一起糊鬧一番。 對那些曾經自唱或是餐加舞會的人來說 會覺得很熟悉,甚至有一種共鳴, 那種和一群好朋友在的感覺。
LL: Or ...
LL: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.
JS: 這和我們之前看到的影片非常的不一樣 因為在這,混搭不是單單的 一個人獨自的在自己的地下室製作一部短片; 這變成了社群活動的一種。 但是這不是 最後發展出的新產品 而是一部短片有一種潛力改變我們和其他人的關係。 我們所有的社交互動 變成了一種邀請 變成了混搭這種集體表現。 我們真正的社群生活 蛻變成了藝術。
LL: And so then, what this libertarian draws from these two points ...
LL:所以這位圖書館管理員從這兩點中領悟...
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.
JS:一個混搭音樂是有關 不同的人用我們所共享的文化 當做一種語言去和一位觀眾溝通。 第二階段,社群混搭, 其實是使用這個方式去傳達 人和人之間的關係。 首先,在每個短片內, 小包子(brat pack)人物被當作一種模型架構 讓每個團體演奏出他們真實的社群 但是這裡面,每個短片之中也有一段對話, 當基本架構被設定後, 這變成了一種平台 給團體的社群與真實的話語中 讓相似和不同的意見一個清晰宏亮的發言權。
LL: And then, here's for me, the critical key to what Julian has to say ...
LL:這對我來說, 什麼是關鍵中的關鍵 Julian想告訴大家。
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.
JS:版權政策不單單只是有關 如何刺激 某個藝術產品的數量; 這是有關,要在哪種程度上的控制 我們要允許,被實踐 超越我們現今的社會現象。 現在的社會現象,無法避免的, 被流行文化瀰漫在空中。 我認為一件很要的事就是我們 要讓這兩種不同的公共產品放在心中 如我我們只專注在如何 把其中一樣供給最大化, 我想我們面臨著減少 差異性與豐富性 並且,在某方面來講,或許有一個更重要的。
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.
LL:沒錯。賓果。重點。 自由需要這個機會 給巨大的商業努力 成功的機會 也要有一個機會 去建構這些不同種的文化。 為了實現這個,你需要 一些點子,像是合法使用範圍被重視與保護 去開啟這種創新力, 像是這個自由主義者告訴我們的, 在這兩個多元文化之中, 可以有一個商業文化與共享文化。 重點是,他們,這個男的,這邊 了解那個文化。
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.
現在,我擔心的是,我們民主黨的, 太常,或許沒那麼常。 好吧,那拿這個大公司舉個例子好了。 在以前段那美好日子,當這個共和黨的經營那間公司時, 他們最大的貢獻都是以前所建立的貢獻。 所有迪士尼的那些輝煌成就 都是在公有領域中的成就, 然後經過了重新組合與調整 或者是等到這些專利權失效後,然後再重新組合這些創作, 去慶祝這個附屬的重新組合這個創意行為。 確實,米老鼠他自己當然, 如同"汽船威利," 是之後的一個重新組合,非常的佔優勢 非常熱門的"氣船威利" Buster Keaton所做的。 這個人是一個非凡的重新組合者。 他就是這種創意的 慶祝者與理想者。
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.
但是之後這個公司面臨了 這個黑暗的階段 到了這個民主黨。 非常的不一樣。 這是一個策劃 在背後漸漸的通過的法律,我們稱為 the Sonny Bono版權定義延伸法, 來延伸現有的版權擁有權限 到20年, 這樣一來就沒有人能對迪士尼做一些 迪士尼對Nrothers Grimm所做的事情了。 現在,當我們想去挑戰這件事時, 我們去最高等法院,說服最高法院,也就是一對保守派的人-- 如果我們可以讓他們醒來 --去終止這項法令。 我們有諾貝爾獎得主們幫助我們 包括這個右翼派的人 諾貝爾獎得主,Milton Friedman, 他說他會加入我們的簡報 但是一定要有"沒腦"這個字 在簡報的某些地方被提及 (笑聲) 但很明顯的,沒腦 存在過這個地方 當名主黨通過然後簽下了 這個法案定成法律。 這個一個小小的雙關註腳, Sonny Bono,你可能說,他是個共和黨派的, 但是我才不受騙。 這個人絕不是共和黨派的人。
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?
那麼,第二個例子, 如果想一下這個文化英雄, 左邊的這個偶像, 這個角色的創造人。 看它所建構的網站:星海戰爭版的混搭 邀請大家參觀那個網頁,然後使用他們的創意 對於這個非凡、重要的文化象徵 去發展出這個非凡、重要的文化象徵。 看一下這個許可證。 給這些混搭者的許可證 把這些所有混搭的權利 歸還給Lucas 這個混搭音樂是屬於Lucas的。 確實,你能加任何東西進這個混搭, 你可以加入新的音樂, Lucas有一個全球性並且永久的權利 把這個擁有權分享於大眾,免費化。 這邊沒有創作者被提及到。 創作者沒有任何的權利。 在這故事裡,創作者是收益分成的佃農。(佃農係指以部分濃產品當為租地資金的農民) 然後我們必須記得 誰雇用了這些收收益分成的佃農: 民主黨的,對嗎?
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.
所這種點是共和黨在這 發覺,就是所有權, 確實有存在的必要, 一個對所有權的尊重, 一個我們應該給予作者的尊重, 把尊重給予混搭者,擁有者,土地擁有者, 和版權擁有者 給他們這些無比、強大的東西一個尊重, 而不是那些收收益分成的佃農。 現在,我想這邊有幾個教訓我們需要學習, 就是有關開放 我們的整個生活是一個共享的活動, 至少在某部分。 儘管是Goldman Sachs的領導者, 至少在某些部分。 那為了讓這些分享活動可以實現,我們必須要 給合法使用範圍,一個完善的保護範圍
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.
這是第一點。再來是第二點: 這個分享的生態 需要自由 在自由中創造。 自由,是指不需要任何人的允許, 一種創造的能力。 第三點:我們需要 尊重發明者, 這些混搭的發明者 經由法律 直接的與他們相連。 這個解釋了右翼黨派的 創用CC(Creative Common)非營利團體。 事實上,這不是指右翼黨派是一個非營利團體, 但是當然--讓我聯想到這-- 創用CC(Creative Common),是一個 提供作者們一個自由並且簡單的方式去 去標示他們的內容是否為免費 由他們自己決定。
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.
所以我們從一個"保有所有權利"這個詞 轉換成"保有部分權利"這樣的一個詞 所以大家知道他們使用的內容的自由範圍定界, 基於這種 被著作權保護的創意嘉做。 去建構與創造。 我們建構的這些這些工作 促使這個分享在一些部分 經由證照把分享規則清楚化 並且提供一個自由, 去創造時不必先請求允許 因為這個請求已經受予同意了, 以這個尊重創造者的方式,因為這新的作品建構在 這個創造者的擁有權 已經授權為免費資源。 然而這解釋了這個巨大的右翼的陰謀 非常明顯的發展於這些許可 現在,以3億五千多萬的數位資訊 以這種方式 在網路上成為免費資源。
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.
現在一個創造力的生態 一個生態的輪廓 一個平衡的創造力 是否為我們現在所擁有的呢? 其實,就像你們所知道的, 很多人並不相信我們擁有這種平衡。 我在這種創造力的現實生態中旅遊 僅僅一個星期。 我錄製了一部短片, 放在一個叫做"Wireside Chat"的廣播 然後我把這個影片上傳到YouTube. 然後我收到了一封YouTube寄來的信 很奇怪的通知我說 我的影片裡有一些內容 是神秘的WMG一個公司所擁有的 那段影片內容與他們的內容ID相符. 之後我沒再繼續想這件事情。
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.
後來在Twitter,有些人跟我說 "你在Youtube的演講因為違法著作權法被禁止了。那是你的用意嗎?" 假設果我有這個陰謀 去揭發這個清楚的錯誤在這個"數字千年版權法" 我回答,"不。"我連想都沒想過這個。 但是之後我到了這個網站 發現了所有的音樂檔在我的網站都被禁音了。 我整整45分鐘的影片 被禁音了 因為影片內的幾個片段 一個影片有關合法使用範圍, 包含了WMG這個音樂公司。 現在,非常有趣的, 他們現在持續的用那個音樂販賣這些廣告, 如果你播放這個被禁因的影片。 妳依然可以買這個音樂, 但是妳聽不到任何東西 因為這個影片被禁音了
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.
所以我做了現行制度 所要求我做的 去使用免費的 YouTube去表達有關合法使用範圍。 我去了這個網頁,然後我必須回答這些問題。 然後在一個非凡似的 辛普森的小孩Bart 你必須確實的打出這些字 然後給他們這個權利 才可以從新為你的自由而發言。 我覺得我好像又回到了國小三年級。 我不會把圖釘放在老師的椅子上。 我不會放圖釘在老師的椅子上。 這個非常的愚蠢可笑。 這是非常可恥的。 這是一個無比墮落的自由體制 我們應該鼓勵。
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.
有個問題我想問你的是:誰在跟這個體制對抗嗎? 不過,非常有趣的,在以前過去的總統選舉, 誰是第一名, 規章體制的對手 在網路發言上? 是約翰·麥肯。 一封又一封攻擊YouTube的反對信 為了一個更加尊重合法使用範圍 和他們的非凡通知,然後關閉系統。 這個行動導致了他的戰役非常多次的 從網路上被扔掉。
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.
現在,那個故事變成了我的故事, 在很久很久以前的日子,我在右翼黨派時的愚蠢行為。 回到今天, 現在當我有一點偏向左翼黨派時-- 我確實是用左手寫字,所以至少有點"左派"-- 然後我想,我們可不可以在左派 期望著去建構這個 自由生態,在現今, 在一個事情 在那我們知道不平凡的強大力量 影響對抗著這個, 儘管向是左邊的這些象徵人物 享受著推倡議案 這些議案會有效的禁止要求 開放允許給政府金錢援助的研究? 種統已經支持一個過程 一個祕密著談判協定的過程, 這個協定有效的把我們鎖於這個瘋狂的制度 這個數字千年版權法(DMCA) 也就是們現在所採取的 然後非常可能把我們鎖在一個三振的道路,你出局了 當然,這個世界的其他部分則快速的接納這個把權法。 直到現在,一個改革的例子 都沒有。 然後我們不會看到這個改變 在這個體制 在任何短時間內。
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.
所以這裡是開放的教訓 我想這是我們該學習的。 開放是一種承諾 對一套價值觀念。 我們必須跟其他人說這一套價值觀念。 自由的價值觀念。這是一個社區的價值觀念 這是給有限的法規一個價值觀念。 這是一個給予創造者的價值觀念。 現在,如果我們可以從學習這些價值觀念 至少從從右翼黨派中有一些影響 如果我們可以接受他們並且包含他們, 或許我們可以做一個小小的交換條件。 我們從右派的學到了這些觀念, 或許他們會做健保 或者是全球暖化條約或右黨的其他事情
Anyway, please join me in teaching these values.
不管怎樣,請加入我 一起教導這些價值觀念。
Thank you very much.
非常的感謝您的聆聽。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)