Laws that choke creativity | Larry Lessig

Translator: Meelis Seedre Reviewer: Maila Hainsoo

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

I want to talk to you a little bit about user-generated content.

Tahan teile pisut rääkida kasutaja loodud sisust.

I'm going to tell you three stories on the way to one argument

Räägin teile ühe väite poole liikudes kolm lugu,

that's going to tell you a little bit

mis räägivad teile pisut sellest,

about how we open user-generated content up for business.

kuidas me avame kasutaja loodud sisu ärile.

So, here's the first story.

Nii, siin on esimene lugu.

1906. This man, John Philip Sousa, traveled to this place,

1906. See mees, John Philip Sousa, reisis

the United States Capitol, to talk about this technology,

Ühendriikide Kapitooliumi, et rääkida tehnoloogiast,

what he called the, quote, "talking machines."

mida tema nimetas, tsiteerin, “rääkivateks masinateks.”

Sousa was not a fan of the talking machines.

Sousa polnud rääkivate masinate fänn.

This is what he had to say.

Siin on, mida tal oli öelda.

"These talking machines are going to ruin artistic development

“Need rääkivad masinad hävitavad selle maa muusika

of music in this country.

kunstilise arengu.

When I was a boy, in front of every house in the summer evenings,

Kui ma olin väike poiss, võis suveõhtuti leida iga maja ees

you would find young people together

noori inimesi koos,

singing the songs of the day, or the old songs.

laulmas ajakohaseid või vanu laule.

Today, you hear these infernal machines going night and day.

Tänapäeval kuuled sa neid põrgumasinaid mängimas ööd ja päevad.

We will not have a vocal chord left," Sousa said.

Meile ei jää häälepaelagi alles,” ütles Sousa.

"The vocal chords will be eliminated by a process of evolution

"Häälepaelad kõrvaldatakse evolutsiooni protsessi käigus,

as was the tail of man when he came from the ape."

nagu inimese sabagi, kui ta ahvist arenes."

Now, this is the picture I want you to focus on.

Nüüd ma tahan, et te pööraksite tähelepanu sellele pildile.

This is a picture of culture.

See on pilt kultuurist.

We could describe it using modern computer terminology

Me võiksime seda kirjeldada kasutades moodsat arvuti terminoloogiat -

as a kind of read-write culture.

nagu mingit read-write kultuuri.

It's a culture where people participate in the creation

See on kultuur, kus inimesed osalevad oma kultuuri loomises

and the re-creation of their culture. In that sense, it's read-write.

ja taasloomises. Selles mõttes on see read-write.

Sousa's fear was that we would lose that capacity

Sousa hirm oli, et me kaotame selle võime

because of these, quote, "infernal machines." They would take it away.

nende, tsiteerin, “põrgumasinate” tõttu. Nad võtaks selle ära.

And in its place, we'd have the opposite of read-write culture,

Ja selle asemele tekiks read-write kultuuri vastand,

what we could call read-only culture.

mida me võiksime nimetada read-only kultuuriks.

Culture where creativity was consumed

Kultuur, kus loovust tarbiti,

but the consumer is not a creator.

ent tarbija ei ole looja.

A culture which is top-down, owned,

Kultuur, mis on ladviku käes, omatud,

where the vocal chords of the millions have been lost.

kus miljonite häälepaelad on kaduma läinud.

Now, as you look back at the twentieth century,

Nüüd, vaadates tagasi 20ndale sajandile,

at least in what we think of as the, quote, "developed world" --

vähemalt sellele, mida me peame, tsiteerin, “arenenud maailmaks,”

hard not to conclude that Sousa was right.

on raske mitte järeldada, et Sousa’l oli õigus.

Never before in the history of human culture

Mitte kunagi varem inimkultuuri ajaloo jooksul pole

had it been as professionalized, never before as concentrated.

see olnud nii professionaliseeritud, mitte kunagi varem nii kontsentreeritud.

Never before has creativity of the millions

Mitte kunagi varem pole miljonite loovus

been as effectively displaced,

olnud nii efektiivselt ümberpaigutatud,

and displaced because of these, quote, "infernal machines."

ja ümberpaigutatud just nende, tsiteerin, “põrgumasinate” poolt.

The twentieth century was that century

20. sajand oli sajand, mil,

where, at least for those places we know the best,

vähemalt nendes kohtades, mida me teame kõige paremini,

culture moved from this read-write to read-only existence.

liikus kultuur sellest read-write eksistentsist read-only eksistentsi.

So, second. Land is a kind of property --

Nüüd teiseks. Maa on teatud tüüpi omand -

it is property. It's protected by law.

see on omand. See on kaitstud seadusega.

As Lord Blackstone described it, land is protected by trespass law,

Nagu Lord Blackstone seda kirjeldas, on maa kaitstud läbikäiguseadusega,

for most of the history of trespass law,

enamuse läbikäiguseaduse ajaloost

by presuming it protects the land all the way down below

eeldades, et see kaitseb maad lõpuni alla

and to an indefinite extent upward.

ja lõputult üles.

Now, that was a pretty good system

No see oli päris hea süsteem

for most of the history of the regulation of land,

enamuse selle maa regulatsiooni ajaloo vältel,

until this technology came along, and people began to wonder,

kuni see tehnoloogia saabus ja inimesed hakkasid pead murdma,

were these instruments trespassers

kas need instrumendid on sissetungijad,

as they flew over land without clearing the rights

kui nad üle maa lendasid ega kooskõlastanud seda

of the farms below as they traveled across the country?

allolevate taludega, lennates üle kogu riigi.

Well, in 1945, Supreme Court got a chance to address that question.

Igatahes aastal 1945 sai Ülemkohus võimaluse sellele küsimusele vastata.

Two farmers, Thomas Lee and Tinie Causby, who raised chickens,

Kahel talunikul, Thomas Lee’l ja Tinie Causby’l, kes kasvatasid kanu,

had a significant complaint because of these technologies.

oli oluline kaebus nende tehnoloogiate tõttu.

The complaint was that their

Kaebus oli, et nende

chickens followed the pattern of the airplanes

kanad järgisid lennukite kulgu

and flew themselves into the walls of the barn

ja lennutasid ennast vastu lauta,

when the airplanes flew over the land.

kui lennukid üle maa lendasid.

And so they appealed to Lord Blackstone

Ja nii nad pöördusid nõudega Lord Blackstone’i poole,

to say these airplanes were trespassing.

öeldes, et need lennukid olid sissetungijad.

Since time immemorial, the law had said,

Aegade algusest peale oli seadus öelnud,

you can't fly over the land without permission of the landowner,

et ei tohi lennata üle maa ilma maaomaniku loata,

so this flight must stop.

seega, see lendamine peab lõppema.

Well, the Supreme Court considered this 100-years tradition

No Ülemkohus kaalutles seda 100-aastast traditsiooni

and said, in an opinion written by Justice Douglas,

ja ütles, Justice Douglas’e poolt kirjutatud arvamuses,

that the Causbys must lose.

et Causby’d peavad kaotama.

The Supreme Court said the doctrine protecting land

Ülemkohus ütles, et doktriin, mis kaitseb maad

all the way to the sky has no place in the modern world,

lõputult taevasse, ei oma kohta moodsas maailmas,

otherwise every transcontinental flight would

muidu annaks iga transkontinentaalne lend aluse

subject the operator to countless trespass suits.

muuta operaator lõputute läbikäiguseaduse hagide subjektiks.

Common sense, a rare idea in the law, but here it was. Common sense --

Terve mõistus, harv idee seaduses, aga seal ta oli, terve mõistus.

(Laughter) --

(Naer)

Revolts at the idea. Common sense.

Terve mõistus on selle mõtte vastu. Terve mõistus.

Finally. Before the Internet, the last great terror

Viimaks. Enne internetti oli viimane suur terror,

to rain down on the content industry

mis sadas meediatööstuse kaela,

was a terror created by this technology. Broadcasting:

loodud selle tehnoloogia poolt: ringhääling.

a new way to spread content,

Uus moodus sisu levitada

and therefore a new battle over the control

ja seega uus lahing kontrolli üle

of the businesses that would spread content.

äris, mis sisu levitama hakkaks.

Now, at that time, the entity,

Nüüd, sel ajal entiteet -

the legal cartel, that controlled the performance rights

seaduslik kartell, mis kontrollis esinemisõigusi

for most of the music that would be broadcast

enamuse muusika üle, mis oleks eetrisse sattunud

using these technologies was ASCAP.

kasutades neid tehnoloogiaid, oli ASCAP.

They had an exclusive license on the most popular content,

Neil oli eksklusiivne litsents kõige populaarsema sisu üle

and they exercised it in a way that tried to demonstrate

ja nad kasutasid seda nii, et demonstreerida

to the broadcasters who really was in charge.

ringhäälingutele, kes tegelikult asja juhib.

So, between 1931 and 1939, they raised rates by some 448 percent,

Seega, 1931 ja 1939 vahel tõstsid nad tariife 448%,

until the broadcasters finally got together

kuni ringhäälingud said lõpuks kokku

and said, okay, enough of this.

ja ütlesid, hea küll, aitab sellest.

And in 1939, a lawyer, Sydney Kaye, started something

Ning aastal 1939 alustas jurist Sydney Kaye midagi

called Broadcast Music Inc. We know it as BMI.

nimega Broadcast Music Incorporated. Me teame seda kui BMI.

And BMI was much more democratic in the art

Ja BMI oli hulga demokraatlikum kunsti osas,

that it would include within its repertoire,

mida ta kaasas oma repertuaari,

including African American music for the first time in the repertoire.

lisades esmakordselt Afroameerika muusika oma repertuaari.

But most important was that BMI took public domain works

Aga kõige tähtsam oli, et BMI võttis vaba kasutuse töid

and made arrangements of them, which they gave away for free

ja tegi nendest kokkuleppeid, mida nad andsid ära tasuta

to their subscribers. So that in 1940,

oma tellijatele. Nii et 1940. aastal,

when ASCAP threatened to double their rates,

kui ASCAP ähvardas oma tariife kahekordistada,

the majority of broadcasters switched to BMI.

läks enamus kanaleid üle BMI’sse.

Now, ASCAP said they didn't care.

Nii, ASCAP ütles, et neil on ükskõik.

The people will revolt, they predicted, because the very best music

Inimesed hakkavad mässama, ennustasid nad, kuna parim muusika

was no longer available, because they had shifted

pole enam kättesaadav, sest nad olid valinud

to the second best public domain provided by BMI.

paremuselt teise vaba kasutuse domeeni, mida pakkus BMI.

Well, they didn't revolt, and in 1941, ASCAP cracked.

No nad ei hakanud mässama ning aastal 1941 ASCAP murdus.

And the important point to recognize

Oluline on siinkohal mõista,

is that even though these broadcasters

et kuigi need jaamad

were broadcasting something you would call second best,

lasid eetrisse midagi, mida võiks kutsuda paremuselt teiseks,

that competition was enough to break, at that time,

oli see konkurents piisav, et murda tol ajal

this legal cartel over access to music.

see muusikale juurdepääsu piirav seaduslik kartell.

Okay. Three stories. Here's the argument.

Nonii. Kolm lugu. Siit tuleb väide.

In my view, the most significant thing to recognize

Minu arvates on kõige olulisem asi ära tunda

about what this Internet is doing

selle juures, mida see internet teeb,

is its opportunity to revive the read-write culture

selle võimalust taaselustada see read-write kultuur,

that Sousa romanticized.

millest Sousa romantiseeris.

Digital technology is the opportunity

Digitaalne tehnoloogia on võimalus

for the revival of these vocal chords

taaselustada need häälepaelad,

that he spoke so passionately to Congress about.

millest ta nii kirglikult Kongressile rääkis.

User-generated content, spreading in businesses

Kasutaja loodud sisu, levides ärides

in extraordinarily valuable ways like these,

nõnda erakordselt väärtuslikel viisidel,

celebrating amateur culture.

tähistamas amatöörkultuuri.

By which I don't mean amateurish culture,

Selle all ei pea ma silmas algajalikku kultuuri,

I mean culture where people produce

ma pean silmas kultuuri, mida inimesed loovad

for the love of what they're doing and not for the money.

armastusest selle tegevuse vastu ja mitte raha pärast.

I mean the culture that your kids are producing all the time.

Ma pean silmas kultuuri, mida teie lapsed loovad kogu aeg.

For when you think of what Sousa romanticized

Sest kui te mõtlete, millest Sousa romantiseeris

in the young people together, singing the songs of the day,

noortes, laulmas koos tänapäevaseid laule,

of the old songs, you should recognize

ja vanadest lauludest, peaksite te ära tundma

what your kids are doing right now.

selle, mida teie lapsed teevad just praegu.

Taking the songs of the day and the old songs

Võttes tänapäeva laulud ja vanad laulud

and remixing them to make them something different.

ja remiksides neid, tehes neid millekski erinevaks.

It's how they understand access to this culture.

Nii mõistavad nad juurdepääsu sellele kultuurile.

So, let's have some very few examples

Seega, võtame mõned üksikud näited,

to get a sense of what I'm talking about here.

et saaksite aru, millest ma siin räägin.

Here's something called Anime Music Video, first example,

Siin on miski, mida kutsutakse Anima Muusika Video, esimene näide,

taking anime captured from television

võttes anima televisioonist

re-edited to music tracks.

ja redigeerides selle uuesti muusikalugudele.

(Music)

(Muusika)

This one you should be -- confidence. Jesus survives. Don't worry.

Seda te peaksite – enesekindlust. Jeesus jääb elama. Ärge muretsege.

(Music)

(Muusika: ”I Will Survive” Gloria Gaynor)

(Laughter)

(Naer)

And this is the best.

Ja see on parim.

(Music)

(Muusika: ”Endless Love” Lionel Ritche ja Diana Ross)

My love ...

Mu arm ...

There's only you in my life ...

Ainult sina oled mu elus …

The only thing that's bright ...

Ainus, mis on ere …

My first love ...

Mu esimene armastus …

You're every breath that I take ...

Oled mu iga hingetõmme …

You're every step I make ...

Oled mu iga samm …

And I ....

Ja mina ...

I want to share all my love with you ...

Mina tahan oma armastust sinuga jagada …

No one else will do ...

Keegi teine pole see …

And your eyes ...

Ja sinu silmad ...

They tell me how much you care ...

Nad räägivad, kui palju sa hoolid …

(Music)

(Muusika)

So, this is remix, right?

Niisiis see on remiks, eksole?

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

And it's important to emphasize that what this is not

Oluline on rõhutada, et see ei ole see,

is not what we call, quote, "piracy."

mida me nimetame, tsiteerin, “piraatluseks”.

I'm not talking about nor justifying

Ma ei räägi ega õigusta

people taking other people's content in wholesale

inimesi, kes võtavad teiste inimeste sisu ja panevad selle hulgimüüki

and distributing it without the permission of the copyright owner.

ja jagavad seda ilma autoriõiguse omaja loata.

I'm talking about people taking and recreating

Ma räägin inimestest, kes võtavad ja loovad uuesti,

using other people's content, using digital technologies

kasutades teiste inimeste loodud sisu, kasutades digitaalset tehnoloogiat,

to say things differently.

et öelda asju teisiti.

Now, the importance of this

Nii, selle tähtsus

is not the technique that you've seen here.

ei ole see tehnika, mida te siin nägite.

Because, of course, every technique that you've seen here

Sest loomulikult on iga tehnika, mida te siin nägite,

is something that television and film producers

olnud miski, mida televisioon ja filmitootjad

have been able to do for the last 50 years.

on olnud võimelised tegema viimased 50 aastat.

The importance is that that technique has been democratized.

Tähtis on, et see tehnika on demokratiseeritud.

It is now anybody with access to a $1,500 computer

Nüüd võib igaüks, kel on juurdepääs 1500-dollarilisele arvutile,

who can take sounds and images from the culture around us

võtta helisid ja pilte meid ümbritsevast kultuurist

and use it to say things differently.

ja kasutada neid, et öelda asju teisiti.

These tools of creativity have become tools of speech.

Need loovuse riistad on saanud kõne riistadeks.

It is a literacy for this generation. This is how our kids speak.

See on selle generatsiooni kirjaoskus. See on kuidas meie lapsed räägivad.

It is how our kids think. It is what your kids are

See on kuidas meie lapsed mõtlevad; see on mis teie lapsed on

as they increasingly understand digital technologies

kui nad üha enam mõistavad digitaalseid tehnoloogiaid

and their relationship to themselves.

ja nende suhet endiga.

Now, in response to this new use of culture using digital technologies,

Nii, vastuseks sellele uuele kultuurikasutusele, mis kasutab digitaalset tehnoloogiat,

the law has not greeted this Sousa revival

pole seadus Sousa taaselavdamist tervitanud

with very much common sense.

just eriti ohtra terve mõistusega.

Instead, the architecture of copyright law

Selle asemel on autoriõiguse seaduse arhitektuur

and the architecture of digital technologies,

ja digitaalse tehnoloogia arhitektuur

as they interact, have produced the presumption

vastastikuselt toimides loonud eelduse,

that these activities are illegal.

et need tegevused on illegaalsed.

Because if copyright law at its core regulates something called copies,

Kuna kui autoriõiguse seadus reguleerib põhitasandil miskit nimega koopiad,

then in the digital world the one fact we can't escape

siis digitaalses maailmas on üks vältimatu fakt,

is that every single use of culture produces a copy.

et iga kultuuri kasutus loob koopia.

Every single use therefore requires permission;

Iga kasutus vajab seetõttu luba;

without permission, you are a trespasser.

ilma selle loata oled sa sissetungija.

You're a trespasser with about as much sense

Sa oled sissetungija umbes samamoodi,

as these people were trespassers.

nagu olid nood inimesed sissetungijad.

Common sense here, though, has not yet revolted

Terve mõistus pole siinkohal siiski veel mässama hakanud

in response to this response that the law has offered

vastuseks seaduse pakutud vastusele

to these forms of creativity.

seda tüüpi loovusele.

Instead, what we've seen

Selle asemel, mida me oleme näinud

is something much worse than a revolt.

on miski palju halvem kui mäss.

There's a growing extremism that comes from both sides

See on kasvav ekstremism, mis tuleb selle debati

in this debate, in response to this conflict

mõlemalt poolelt, vastuseks sellele konfliktile

between the law and the use of these technologies.

seaduste ja nende tehnoloogiate kasutamise vahel.

One side builds new technologies, such as one recently announced

Üks pool ehitab uusi tehnoloogiaid, nagu viimati välja kuulutatu,

that will enable them

mis võimaldab neil

to automatically take down from sites like YouTube

lehtedelt nagu YouTube automaatselt maha võtta

any content that has any copyrighted content in it,

iga materjali, milles on mingi osa autoriõigusega kaitstud,

whether or not there's a judgment of fair use

hoolimata sellest, kas seal on hinnang õiglasele kasutusele,

that might be applied to the use of that content.

mida vöiks rakendada selle materjali kasutamiseks.

And on the other side, among our kids,

Ja teisel pool, meie laste seas,

there's a growing copyright abolitionism,

on kasvav autoriõiguse ümberlükkamine,

a generation that rejects the very notion

generatsioon, mis hülgab just selle,

of what copyright is supposed to do, rejects copyright

mida autoriõigus peaks tegema, hülgab autoriõiguse

and believes that the law is nothing more than an ass

ja usub, et seadus pole muud kui eesel,

to be ignored and to be fought at every opportunity possible.

keda ignoreerida ja kellega võidelda igal võimalusel.

The extremism on one side begets extremism on the other,

Ekstremism ühel poolel sigitab ekstremismi teisel pool,

a fact we should have learned many, many times over,

fakt, mida me oleksime pidanud õppima mitu, mitu korda

and both extremes in this debate are just wrong.

ning mõlemad ekstreemsused selles debatis on lihtsalt valed.

Now, the balance that I try to fight for,

Nüüd see tasakaal, mille nimel ma katsun võidelda, –

I, as any good liberal, try to fight for first

mina, nagu iga hea liberaal proovib võidelda esmalt

by looking to the government. Total mistake, right?

vaadates valitsuse poole. Täielik viga, eks?

(Laughter)

(Naer)

Looked first to the courts and the legislatures to try to get them

Vaatasin esmalt kohtu ja seadusandliku võimu poole, et proovida nad

to do something to make the system make more sense.

panna tegema midagi, mis süsteemi mõistlikumaks teeks.

It failed partly because the courts are too passive,

See kukkus läbi osaliselt, kuna kohtud on liiga passiivsed,

partly because the legislatures are corrupted,

ja osaliselt, kuna seadusandlik võim on korrumpeerunud,

by which I don't mean that there's bribery

mille all ma ei pea silmas, et on altkäemaksu,

operating to stop real change,

mis tegutseb takistamaks tõelist muutust,

but more the economy of influence that governs how Congress functions

vaid pigem mõjutuste majanduskorda, mis juhib Kongressi tööd,

means that policymakers here will not understand this

tähendades, et seaduseloojad ei mõista seda olukorda,

until it's too late to fix it.

kuni on liiga hilja, et seda parandada.

So, we need something different, we need a different kind of solution.

Seega on meil vaja midagi erinevat, me vajame teistsugust lahendust,

And the solution here, in my view, is a private solution,

ja see lahendus siin, minu arvates, see on privaatne lahendus,

a solution that looks to legalize what it is to be young again,

lahendus, mis proovib uuesti noor olemist seadustada

and to realize the economic potential of that,

ja mõista selle majanduslikku potentsiaali,

and that's where the story of BMI becomes relevant.

ning see on koht, kus BMI lugu muutub asjakohaseks.

Because, as BMI demonstrated, competition here

Sest nagu BMI demonstreeris, võib konkurents siin

can achieve some form of balance. The same thing can happen now.

saavutada teatud tasakaalu. Sama asi võib juhtuda praegu.

We don't have a public domain to draw upon now,

Meil pole vabakasutuse domeeni, millele praegu tugineda

so instead what we need is two types of changes.

ja mida me selle asemel vajame, on kahte sorti muutused.

First, that artists and creators embrace the idea,

Esmalt, et artistid ja loojad võtaks omaks selle idee

choose that their work be made available more freely.

valida, et nende looming tehtaks vabamalt kättesaadavaks.

So, for example, they can say their work is available freely

Näiteks, nad võivad öelda, et nende looming on vabalt kättesaadav

for non-commercial, this amateur-type of use,

mittekommertsialaseks, selleks amatöör-tüüpi kasutuseks,

but not freely for any commercial use.

aga mitte vabalt igasuguseks kommertsiaalseks kasutuseks.

And second, we need the businesses

Ja teiseks, meil on vaja, et need ärid,

that are building out this read-write culture

mis arendavad seda read-write kultuuri,

to embrace this opportunity expressly, to enable it,

võtaks selgelt omaks selle võimaluse, võimaldaksid seda,

so that this ecology of free content, or freer content,

nii, et see vaba sisu ökoloogia, või vabam sisu,

can grow on a neutral platform

saaks kasvada neutraalsel platvormil,

where they both exist simultaneously,

kus nad mõlemad eksisteerivad samaaegselt,

so that more-free can compete with less-free,

nii et rohkem vaba saab konkureerida vähem vabaga

and the opportunity to develop the creativity in that competition

ja võimalus arendada loovust selles konkurentsis

can teach one the lessons of the other.

saab õpetada ühele teise õppetunnid.

Now, I would talk about one particular such plan

Nüüd ma räägiks ühest konkreetsest sellisest plaanist,

that I know something about,

millest ma midagi tean,

but I don't want to violate TED's first commandment of selling,

aga ma ei taha rikkuda TED’i esimest käsku mitte müüa,

so I'm not going to talk about this at all.

seega ei räägi ma sellest üldse.

I'm instead just going to remind you of the point that BMI teaches us.

Selle asemel ma tuletan teile meelde mõtet, mida BMI meile õpetab.

That artist choice is the key for new technology

Et artistide valik on võti uue tehnoloogia

having an opportunity to be open for business,

võimalusele olla avatud ärile

and we need to build artist choice here

ja me peame siinkohal ehitama artistide valikuid,

if these new technologies are to have that opportunity.

kui need uued tehnoloogiad selle võimaluse saavad.

But let me end with something I think much more important --

Aga las ma lõpetan minu arvates millegi palju olulisemaga –

much more important than business.

palju olulisemaga, kui seda on äri.

It's the point about how this connects to our kids.

See on mõte sellest, kuidas see seostub meie lastega.

We have to recognize they're different from us. This is us, right?

Me peame mõistma, et nad on meist erinevad. Need oleme meie, eks?

(Laughter)

(Naer)

We made mixed tapes; they remix music.

Meie tegime miksitud kassette; nemad remiksivad muusikat.

We watched TV; they make TV.

Meie vaatasime televisiooni; nemad teevad televisiooni.

It is technology that has made them different,

See on tehnoloogia, mis on nad erinevaks teinud

and as we see what this technology can do,

ja nagu me näeme, mis see tehnoloogia võib teha,

we need to recognize you can't kill

peame me mõistma, et ei saa tappa

the instinct the technology produces. We can only criminalize it.

tehnoloogia loodud instinkti. Me saame seda ainult kriminaliseerida.

We can't stop our kids from using it.

Me ei sa oma lapsi peatada seda kasutamast.

We can only drive it underground.

Me saame selle ainult põranda alla suruda.

We can't make our kids passive again.

Me ei saa oma lapsi uuesti pasiivseteks muuta.

We can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good?

Me saame nad ainult muuta, tsiteerin, “piraatideks”. Ja kas see on hea?

We live in this weird time. It's kind of age of prohibitions,

Me elame sellel imelikul ajal. See on teatav keeluaeg,

where in many areas of our life,

kus me oma elu paljudes valdkondades,

we live life constantly against the law.

elame pidevalt seadusevastaselt.

Ordinary people live life against the law,

Tavalised inimesed elavad elu seadusevastaselt,

and that's what I -- we are doing to our kids.

ja see on mida mina – meie teeme oma lastega.

They live life knowing they live it against the law.

Nad elavad elu teades, et nad elavad seda seadusevastaselt.

That realization is extraordinarily corrosive,

Selle mõistmine on erakordselt söövitav,

extraordinarily corrupting.

erakordselt laostav.

And in a democracy, we ought to be able to do better.

Ja demokraatias peaksime me olema võimelised paremaks.

Do better, at least for them, if not for opening for business.

Võimelised paremaks, vähemalt nende jaoks, kui mitte avamiseks ärile.

Thank you very much.

Tänan väga.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)