Laws that choke creativity | Larry Lessig

譯者: Tzu-Pei Tsai 審譯者: Adrienne Lin

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

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

我想要跟你們談一些網友創造的內容

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

我會用三個故事來講同一個主題

that's going to tell you a little bit

告訴你一些

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

我們怎麼樣開放網友自由創作來做生意

So, here's the first story.

第一個故事

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

1906年，約翰．飛利浦．蘇莎 到了這個地方

the United States Capitol, to talk about this technology,

美國的首都來談這個科技

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

他把他稱之為「說話機」

Sousa was not a fan of the talking machines.

蘇莎其實沒有很喜歡說話機

This is what he had to say.

他說

"These talking machines are going to ruin artistic development

這些說話機會摧毀這個國家音樂的

of music in this country.

藝術發展

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

我還小的時候，夏天晚上在我家前

you would find young people together

有很多年經人

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

一起唱著流行歌，或是老歌

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

今天你不論何時何地都可以看到這些「地獄機器」

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

我們的聲帶都會退化不見，蘇莎這樣說

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

聲帶會因為演化而被淘汰了

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

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.

這是我要你注意的景象

This is a picture of culture.

這是一個文化的想像

We could describe it using modern computer terminology

我們可以用現代的電腦術語來說

as a kind of read-write culture.

就是一種「讀--寫」文化

It's a culture where people participate in the creation

也就是人們關注於創造的文化

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

還有「再創造」他們的文化，也可以說是讀和寫

Sousa's fear was that we would lose that capacity

蘇莎害怕的是我們會失去這種能力

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

正因為如此，他才說了這些「地獄機器」會奪走我們這些能力

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

然後我們就會有「讀寫」文化的相反

what we could call read-only culture.

我們可以稱為 「只讀」文化

Culture where creativity was consumed

只消費創意的文化

but the consumer is not a creator.

但是消費者不是創造者

A culture which is top-down, owned,

是上游主宰下游的文化

where the vocal chords of the millions have been lost.

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,

現在如果我們回顧二十世紀

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

至少在所謂的「已開發世界」中

hard not to conclude that Sousa was right.

很難不說蘇莎是對的

Never before in the history of human culture

人類文化歷史上

had it been as professionalized, never before as concentrated.

從來沒有這樣專業化、集中的文化

Never before has creativity of the millions

也從沒有過數百萬人的創意

been as effectively displaced,

很明顯地不見了

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

而且是因為這些「地獄機器」才不見了

The twentieth century was that century

二十世紀是這樣的時代

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

在那些我們所熟知的地方

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

文化從「讀寫」雙向變成只剩下「讀」存在

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

第二個故事，土地是一種財產

it is property. It's protected by law.

土地是財產，而且受法律保障

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

就像布雷史東勳爵所說的，土地受到「入侵法」保障

for most of the history of trespass law,

在入侵法歷史上一大部分

by presuming it protects the land all the way down below

這個法律保障土地以下部分

and to an indefinite extent upward.

以及土地以上無窮高的部分

Now, that was a pretty good system

這是一個不錯的系統

for most of the history of the regulation of land,

就歷史上規範土地來說

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

直到這個科技出現，人們開始出現疑惑

were these instruments trespassers

這些東西算是入侵者嗎？

as they flew over land without clearing the rights

沒有釐清權力就飛越土地

of the farms below as they traveled across the country?

飛過農場，橫貫全國

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

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,

兩個雞農，湯瑪士李和提尼考斯比

had a significant complaint because of these technologies.

因為這些科技發出強烈不滿

The complaint was that their

他們抱怨說

chickens followed the pattern of the airplanes

他們養的雞會跟著飛機跑

and flew themselves into the walls of the barn

結果飛去撞農場的牆壁

when the airplanes flew over the land.

而飛機悠然掠過大地

And so they appealed to Lord Blackstone

所以他們引用佈雷史東勳爵說的

to say these airplanes were trespassing.

飛機侵入了他們的土地

Since time immemorial, the law had said,

因為古早的法律規定

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

不可以在沒有經過地主允許的條件下飛越那塊土地

so this flight must stop.

所以這些飛機必須要停飛

Well, the Supreme Court considered this 100-years tradition

最高法院認為這是百年前訂定的事情

and said, in an opinion written by Justice Douglas,

道格拉斯大法官如是判

that the Causbys must lose.

雞農輸掉官司

The Supreme Court said the doctrine protecting land

最高法院說這個保護土地的法條

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

所講到的天空部分已經不試用於現代社會

otherwise every transcontinental flight would

要不然國際航班都在討論範圍

subject the operator to countless trespass suits.

那麼就會有數不清的入侵官司了

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

常識，法律上雖然罕見，但真的是「常識」

(Laughter) --

（笑）

Revolts at the idea. Common sense.

這個概念如此被否決：常識

Finally. Before the Internet, the last great terror

最後，在網路之前

to rain down on the content industry

最後一次恐怖的內容產業大軍來襲

was a terror created by this technology. Broadcasting:

就是這個科技帶來的恐懼：廣播

a new way to spread content,

一種傳播內容的新方法

and therefore a new battle over the control

所以另外一場關於控制的新戰役

of the businesses that would spread content.

散播內容的生意

Now, at that time, the entity,

那時候真正有的是

the legal cartel, that controlled the performance rights

控制表演權力的法定企業聯合組織

for most of the music that would be broadcast

控制那些音樂可以經由廣播放送

using these technologies was ASCAP.

用ASCAP這項技術

They had an exclusive license on the most popular content,

他們擁有絕大多數流行內容的獨有執照

and they exercised it in a way that tried to demonstrate

他們以此控管

to the broadcasters who really was in charge.

那些第一線的廣播人員

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

所以在1931年到1939年，它們把使用費率提高到448%

until the broadcasters finally got together

直到廣播人員受不了，團結起來

and said, okay, enough of this.

說「好，我們受夠了」

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

1939年，律師西尼凱開始做一些事情

called Broadcast Music Inc. We know it as BMI.

叫做廣播音樂法人組織，也就是我們知道的BMI

And BMI was much more democratic in the art

BMI對於藝術非常民主

that it would include within its repertoire,

他在自己的音樂庫中收錄了

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

包括第一次收錄非裔美人的音樂

But most important was that BMI took public domain works

但是最重要的還是BMI 採用普羅大眾的作品

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

幫他們做安排，然後免費發送給他們的訂閱者

to their subscribers. So that in 1940,

所以1940年

when ASCAP threatened to double their rates,

當ASCAP揚言要調漲一倍音樂使用費時

the majority of broadcasters switched to BMI.

大部分的廣播人員轉而投向BMI

Now, ASCAP said they didn't care.

ASCAP說他們不在乎

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

他們預期聽眾會抗議

was no longer available, because they had shifted

因為最好的音樂已經聽不到了

to the second best public domain provided by BMI.

因為廣播都已經改用次等的BMI

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

不過聽眾並沒有反抗，而1941年 ASCAP 倒閉了

And the important point to recognize

這裡很重要的一點是

is that even though these broadcasters

儘管廣播人員

were broadcasting something you would call second best,

播出那些所謂的次等作品

that competition was enough to break, at that time,

在那時候，這樣的競爭就足以

this legal cartel over access to music.

終結法定企業聯合對於音樂使用的控管

Okay. Three stories. Here's the argument.

好了，就這三個故事。現在是我的討論

In my view, the most significant thing to recognize

我認為最重要的是

about what this Internet is doing

確認網際網路的影響

is its opportunity to revive the read-write culture

是不是像蘇莎所幻想的

that Sousa romanticized.

是接受「讀寫」文化的機會

Digital technology is the opportunity

數位科技是不是

for the revival of these vocal chords

讓聲帶復活的機會

that he spoke so passionately to Congress about.

就像蘇莎大聲疾呼的那樣

User-generated content, spreading in businesses

網友製造的內容，商業的散播

in extraordinarily valuable ways like these,

用像這樣特別有價值的方法

celebrating amateur culture.

來鼓勵普羅文化

By which I don't mean amateurish culture,

我不是說素人文化

I mean culture where people produce

我的意思是說人們創造的文化

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

為了他們的愛好，而不為錢

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

我指的是你家小孩無時無刻都在創造的文化

For when you think of what Sousa romanticized

也就是當你想到蘇莎說過的

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

年輕人聚在一起唱歌

of the old songs, you should recognize

你就應該要了解

what your kids are doing right now.

你小孩也正在這樣做

Taking the songs of the day and the old songs

把流行歌和老歌

and remixing them to make them something different.

重新混合在一起，創造很不一樣的感覺

It's how they understand access to this culture.

那就是他們了解怎樣介入文化

So, let's have some very few examples

來舉幾個例子好了

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

來讓我現在談的東西更清楚

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

第一個例子，有一種東西叫做動畫音樂短片

taking anime captured from television

從電視上把動畫節錄下來

re-edited to music tracks.

和音樂一起重新編輯

(Music)

♫

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

這首歌你一定知道「耶穌活著」，先別急

(Music)

（音樂：「I Will Survive」）

(Laughter)

（笑）

And this is the best.

這是最厲害的

(Music)

（音樂：「Endless Love」）

My love ...

我的愛...

There's only you in my life ...

我生命中只有你

The only thing that's bright ...

你是唯一的光明

My first love ...

我最初的愛

You're every breath that I take ...

我呼吸都是你

You're every step I make ...

我走的每一步都是你

And I ....

而我

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

我想和你分享我全部的愛

No one else will do ...

沒有其他人可以

And your eyes ...

你的眼睛

They tell me how much you care ...

告訴我你多在乎我

(Music)

♫

So, this is remix, right?

這就是重新混音

(Applause)

（掌聲）

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

強調這「不是」原曲才是重點

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

而不是我們所謂的「盜版」

I'm not talking about nor justifying

我沒有要討論也沒有要評判

people taking other people's content in wholesale

拿別人量販的內容

and distributing it without the permission of the copyright owner.

沒有經過版權所有者同意就散步

I'm talking about people taking and recreating

我要說的是使用然後「再創作」

using other people's content, using digital technologies

用別人的內容，用電子科技

to say things differently.

來說不一樣的事情

Now, the importance of this

好，整件事情的重點

is not the technique that you've seen here.

並不是你在這邊所看到的技術

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

因為，當然你在這裡所見的每種技術

is something that television and film producers

都是電視和電影製作上

have been able to do for the last 50 years.

五十年前就有辦法做的

The importance is that that technique has been democratized.

重要的是現在這種技術已經民主化了

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

現在只要有錢買1,500美元電腦的人

who can take sounds and images from the culture around us

就能把身邊各種文化的聲音和影像拿來使用

and use it to say things differently.

用來說不一樣的事情

These tools of creativity have become tools of speech.

這些創意的工具已經變成發聲的工具

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

是這個世代的文化，這是我們小孩說話的方式

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

是我們小孩思考的方式，就是你們的小孩

as they increasingly understand digital technologies

小孩越來越懂電腦技術

and their relationship to themselves.

他們和自己的關係

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

回應這用電腦科技的新文化

the law has not greeted this Sousa revival

法律並沒有用基本常識

with very much common sense.

來面對這場蘇莎復活

Instead, the architecture of copyright law

反而，版權法的建構

and the architecture of digital technologies,

還有電腦科技的建構

as they interact, have produced the presumption

當他們互動的時候產生了很多假設

that these activities are illegal.

預設這些行為違法

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

因為如果版權法的中心思想就是要規範「複製」

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

那麼數位世界中，我們無可逃避的現實是

is that every single use of culture produces a copy.

每使用一次文化，就會造成複製

Every single use therefore requires permission;

所以每次使用都需要授權

without permission, you are a trespasser.

沒有授權你就是侵略者

You're a trespasser with about as much sense

你就是侵略者

as these people were trespassers.

跟侵略別人土地的那些一樣

Common sense here, though, has not yet revolted

常識在這裡還沒有產生反抗的力量

in response to this response that the law has offered

來回應法律提出的回應

to these forms of creativity.

回應這種創造

Instead, what we've seen

我們卻看到

is something much worse than a revolt.

比反抗更糟的事情

There's a growing extremism that comes from both sides

兩邊都有發展出各自極端的想法

in this debate, in response to this conflict

回應這種衝突

between the law and the use of these technologies.

這種技術和法律之間的衝突

One side builds new technologies, such as one recently announced

一邊建立新的科技，比如最近出爐的一項科技

that will enable them

可以讓他們

to automatically take down from sites like YouTube

自動把YouTube上面

any content that has any copyrighted content in it,

任何版權內容抓下來

whether or not there's a judgment of fair use

不管有沒有公平使用的概念

that might be applied to the use of that content.

這個可能被用在那個內容的蓋念

And on the other side, among our kids,

另外一邊，在我們的小孩中

there's a growing copyright abolitionism,

有越來越多的版權侵犯

a generation that rejects the very notion

是反對版權基本概念的世代

of what copyright is supposed to do, rejects copyright

反對版權，而且不相信法律

and believes that the law is nothing more than an ass

覺得都是屁

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

可以忽略，而且只要有機會都可以挑戰

The extremism on one side begets extremism on the other,

一個極端造成另一個極端

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

這是我們應該已經學過很多次的事實

and both extremes in this debate are just wrong.

而這兩個討論的極端都錯了

Now, the balance that I try to fight for,

那我試著要爭取的平衡

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

我和其他自由主義者一樣

by looking to the government. Total mistake, right?

一開始都會向政府爭取，完全錯了，對吧

(Laughter)

（笑）

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

向法院和立法委員們爭取

to do something to make the system make more sense.

試著讓他們讓我們的系統更有道理

It failed partly because the courts are too passive,

失敗了，部分因為法院太消極

partly because the legislatures are corrupted,

部分因為立法委員腐敗

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

這裡我並不是說他們收受賄賂

operating to stop real change,

阻止改變的發生

but more the economy of influence that governs how Congress functions

而是在說主宰國會運作的經濟影響力

means that policymakers here will not understand this

也就是這些立法者不會了解

until it's too late to fix it.

只會亡羊補牢

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

所以，我們需要不一樣的，我們需要另一種解決方案

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

而這裡的方案，我覺得是種個人的方案

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

一個使年輕合法化的方案

and to realize the economic potential of that,

而且了解其中的經濟潛力

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

就像BMI的故事那樣

Because, as BMI demonstrated, competition here

因為就像BMI表現出來的

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

競爭可以達到某些平衡，現在一樣可以發生

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

我們不需要一個公眾領域來說明

so instead what we need is two types of changes.

我們需要的是兩種改變

First, that artists and creators embrace the idea,

第一，藝術家和創作者接受這個概念

choose that their work be made available more freely.

讓他們的作品更自由被取得

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

所以，比如說，他們可以說他們的作品可以自由取得

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

只要是非商業性，這種素人使用

but not freely for any commercial use.

但是不可以自由作為任何商業使用

And second, we need the businesses

還有第二，我們需要

that are building out this read-write culture

正在建構這種讀寫文化的商業

to embrace this opportunity expressly, to enable it,

擁抱這個機會，讓他可以存在

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

好讓自由內容，或是比較自由內容的環境

can grow on a neutral platform

可以在中性的平台上發展

where they both exist simultaneously,

而都可以並存

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

所以比較自由的，可以和比較不自由的競爭

and the opportunity to develop the creativity in that competition

而在競爭中發展創意的機會

can teach one the lessons of the other.

可以互相學習

Now, I would talk about one particular such plan

好，我想要談談

that I know something about,

我聽過某個關於這個的計畫

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

不過我不想要違反TED 第一條販售的戒律

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

所以我根本不會談到他

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

而只是要提醒你BMI教我們的事

That artist choice is the key for new technology

藝術家的選擇是新科技的關鍵

having an opportunity to be open for business,

有新的機會來開創新的事業

and we need to build artist choice here

我們需要建立藝術家可以做的選擇

if these new technologies are to have that opportunity.

如果這些科技有這樣的機會

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

讓我用我覺得更重要的事情來做總結

much more important than business.

比商業更重要太多

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

那是這一切怎樣和我們小孩連結

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

我們必須承認他們跟我們不一樣，對吧

(Laughter)

（笑）

We made mixed tapes; they remix music.

我們錄混音錄音帶，他們混音音樂

We watched TV; they make TV.

我們看電視，他們做電視

It is technology that has made them different,

這是科技讓他們不同

and as we see what this technology can do,

當我們看到科技的能

we need to recognize you can't kill

我們必須承認你不能戕害

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

科技所產生的本能，我們只會讓他有罪

We can't stop our kids from using it.

我們無法阻止小孩不用

We can only drive it underground.

我們只會使其走入地下

We can't make our kids passive again.

我們不可以讓我們的小孩繼續被動了

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

我們可以讓他們「盜版」，那樣好嗎？

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

我們活在一個奇怪的時代，一個禁令的時代

where in many areas of our life,

在我們生活中的許多領域

we live life constantly against the law.

我們處處違反著法律

Ordinary people live life against the law,

一般人違法著過生活

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

而那就是我、我們對我們小孩做的事

They live life knowing they live it against the law.

他們過著生活，並且知道這是違法的

That realization is extraordinarily corrosive,

這樣的認知非常具有腐蝕性

extraordinarily corrupting.

極端的迂腐

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

而在民主中我們應該能做得更好

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

做得更好，就算不是為了生意，至少為了孩子吧

Thank you very much.

謝謝你們

(Applause)

（掌聲）