Defend our freedom to share (or why SOPA is a bad idea) | Clay Shirky

譯者: Kai Cheong Chan 審譯者: Geoff Chen

I'm going to start here.

我會從這裡開始。

This is a hand-lettered sign

這是幾年前在我居住的布魯克林區

that appeared in a mom and pop bakery

的街坊麵包舖裡

in my old neighborhood in Brooklyn a few years ago.

見到的一個手繪標誌。

The store owned one of those machines

那家商店擁有一部

that can print on plates of sugar.

可在糖板上打印的機器。

And kids could bring in drawings

小孩們可帶些繪圖來

and have the store print a sugar plate

請那家商店打印一塊糖板

for the top of their birthday cake.

放在他們的生日蛋糕上。

But unfortunately, one of the things kids liked to draw

但不幸的是，其中一種小孩們喜歡繪畫的事物

was cartoon characters.

是卡通人物。

They liked to draw the Little Mermaid,

他們喜歡繪畫小美人魚，

they'd like to draw a smurf, they'd like to draw Micky Mouse.

他們會畫一個藍精靈，也會畫米老鼠。

But it turns out to be illegal

原來把小孩畫的米老鼠

to print a child's drawing of Micky Mouse

印在糖板上

onto a plate of sugar.

是違法的。

And it's a copyright violation.

這是侵犯版權的行為。

And policing copyright violations

而監控小孩生日蛋糕

for children's birthday cakes

是否侵犯版權

was such a hassle

是那麼麻煩，以至於

that the College Bakery said,

最終導致那家學院麵包店說，

"You know what, we're getting out of that business.

"你知道嗎，我們不幹那門生意了。

If you're an amateur,

假如你是業餘人士，

you don't have access to our machine anymore.

你不能再用那部機器了。

If you want a printed sugar birthday cake,

如果你想印塊糖板放在生日蛋糕上，

you have to use one of our prefab images --

你必須使用那些預先製好的圖案 --

only for professionals."

只為專業人士而設的。

So there's two bills in Congress right now.

在國會內現有兩項條例草案。

One is called SOPA, the other is called PIPA.

一項叫做SOPA，而另一項是PIPA。

SOPA stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act.

SOPA代表《制止網上盜版法案》。

It's from the Senate.

它是由參議院提出的。

PIPA is short for PROTECTIP,

PIPA是PROTECT IP的簡稱，

which is itself short for

而它又是

Preventing Real Online Threats

"防止經濟創造力的

to Economic Creativity

真正網上威脅

and Theft of Intellectual Property --

及知識產權的盜竊的簡稱 --

because the congressional aides who name these things

因為命名這些東西的國會議員助理

have a lot of time on their hands.

有太多的時間了。

And what SOPA and PIPA want to do

SOPA和PIPA的目的是

is they want to do this.

它們想做到這樣。

They want to raise the cost

它們想把

of copyright compliance

遵守版權法例的成本提高到

to the point where people simply get out of the business

一個水平，令人只好結束

of offering it as a capability to amateurs.

向業餘人士提供的服務。

Now the way they propose to do this

現在他們提出的的做法是

is to identify sites

去識別那些

that are substantially infringing on copyright --

嚴重侵犯版權的網站 --

although how those sites are identified

雖然在條例草案上完全沒有指定

is never fully specified in the bills --

如何去識別這些網站 --

and then they want to remove them from the domain name system.

然後他們想把那些網站從域名系統中刪除。

They want to take them out of the domain name system.

他們想把那些網站從域名系統中剔除。

Now the domain name system

現在，域名系統

is the thing that turns human-readable names, like Google.com,

是把人類懂得讀出的名字，像谷歌 (Google.com)，

into the kinds of addresses

翻譯成機器閱讀的

machines expect --

那種網址 --

74.125.226.212.

74.125.226.212

Now the problem with this model of censorship,

現在的問題是這種識別一個網址

of identifying a site

然後把它從域名系統移除的

and then trying to remove it from the domain name system,

審查模式

is that it won't work.

是行不通的。

And you'd think that would be a pretty big problem for a law,

你會想到作為一條法例這是一個相當大的問題，

but Congress seems not to have let that bother them too much.

但國會似乎不覺得那是一回事。

Now the reason it won't work

它不行的原因是

is that you can still type 74.125.226.212 into the browser

你仍可在瀏覽器輸入74.125.226.212

or you can make it a clickable link

或把它設定為可點擊的連結

and you'll still go to Google.

而你還是可以去到谷歌的網站。

So the policing layer

結果監控

around the problem

這問題的安排

becomes the real threat of the act.

成為這條法案的真正威脅。

Now to understand how Congress came to write a bill

要去了解國會如何制定

that won't accomplish its stated goals,

無法達致其目的

but will produce a lot of pernicious side effects,

反而會帶來不少副作用的法案，

you have to understand a little bit about the back story.

你必須明白一點背景故事。

And the back story is this:

背景故事是:

SOPA and PIPA, as legislation,

SOPA和PIPA，作為法例

were drafted largely by media companies

主要是在20世紀才出現的

that were founded in the 20th century.

媒體機構所草擬的。

The 20th century was a great time to be a media company,

20世紀是媒體機構的黃金時代，

because the thing you really had on your side was scarcity.

因為你身邊只有的就是稀缺性。

If you were making a TV show,

假如你製作電視節目，

it didn't have to be better than all other TV shows ever made;

它不必比所有其他製作的節目好看;

it only had to be better

它只要比另外兩個

than the two other shows

同一時間播出的節目好

that were on at the same time --

便可以了 --

which is a very low threshold

這在競爭難度上

of competitive difficulty.

是一個非常低的門檻。

Which meant

這意謂著

that if you fielded average content,

你只要拍出中庸的內容，

you got a third of the U.S. public for free --

便無須花任何的力氣就可得到三份一的美國觀眾 --

tens of millions of users

為數以千萬的用戶

for simply doing something

只靠簡單地製作些

that wasn't too terrible.

不太差勁的東西。

This is like having a license to print money

這就像得到印刷鈔票的執照

and a barrel of free ink.

另加一桶免費的油墨。

But technology moved on, as technology is wont to do.

但科技發展，就如科技一直進步。

And slowly, slowly, at the end of the 20th century,

慢慢地，到了20世紀末，

that scarcity started to get eroded --

稀缺性開始受到侵蝕 --

and I don't mean by digital technology;

我並非指被數位科技侵蝕;

I mean by analog technology.

而我指的是模擬科技。

Cassette tapes, video cassette recorders,

錄音帶、錄像機、

even the humble Xerox machine

甚至不起眼的複印機

created new opportunities

給我們帶來機會

for us to behave in ways

令我們表現出

that astonished the media business.

令媒體行業驚訝的行為。

Because it turned out

最終發現

we're not really couch potatoes.

我們並非"沙發土豆"。

We don't really like to only consume.

我們真正喜歡的不單是消費。

We do like to consume,

我們喜歡消費，

but every time one of these new tools came along,

但每一次那些新工具出現，

it turned out we also like to produce

都令人發覺我們亦喜歡參與生產

and we like to share.

以及我們喜歡與人分享。

And this freaked the media businesses out --

這令媒體行業嚇了一跳 --

it freaked them out every time.

每次都把他們嚇一跳。

Jack Valenti, who was the head lobbyist

Jack Valenti，美國電影協會的

for the Motion Picture Association of America,

首席說客，

once likened the ferocious video cassette recorder

有一次把兇猛的盒帶式錄像機比喻為

to Jack the Ripper

開膛手傑克

and poor, helpless Hollywood

而把可憐無助的好來塢

to a woman at home alone.

比喻為獨自在家的婦女。

That was the level of rhetoric.

這就是他的修辭水平了。

And so the media industries

因此媒體行業

begged, insisted, demanded

懇求、堅持、要求

that Congress do something.

國會採取行動。

And Congress did something.

而國會真的應他們所求。

By the early 90s, Congress passed the law

90年代初，國會通過了一條

that changed everything.

改變一切的法案。

And that law was called the Audio Home Recording Act

該法案被稱為1992年

of 1992.

家居錄音法。

What the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 said was,

1992年家居錄音法指出

look, if people are taping stuff off the radio

如果人們從無線電台錄下廣播

and then making mixtapes for their friends,

再製造混音帶送給友人，

that is not a crime. That's okay.

並不算犯法。這是沒問題的。

Taping and remixing

錄音和混音

and sharing with your friends is okay.

和跟友人分享是沒問題的。

If you make lots and lots of high quality copies and you sell them,

如果你製造大量高品質的拷貝，然後售賣，

that's not okay.

便有問題了。

But this taping business,

但這是錄音業務，

fine, let it go.

好，算了吧!

And they thought that they clarified the issue,

他們以為弄清了問題，

because they'd set out a clear distinction

因為他們定出了

between legal and illegal copying.

合法和非法複製的清晰區別。

But that wasn't what the media businesses wanted.

但這並非媒體行業想要的。

They had wanted Congress

他們想國會

to outlaw copying full-stop.

把複製定為非法，句號。

So when the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 was passed,

因此當通過1992年的家居錄音法時，

the media businesses gave up on the idea

媒體行業放棄了

of legal versus illegal distinctions for copying

區分合法和非法複製這個念頭

because it was clear

因為很明顯

that if Congress was acting in their framework,

如果國會根據他們的框架行事，

they might actually increase the rights of citizens

他們實際可能增加市民的權利

to participate in our own media environment.

去介入我們媒體的環境。

So they went for plan B.

於是他們進行了B計劃。

It took them a while to formulate plan B.

他們花了一段時間來制訂 B計劃。

Plan B appeared in its first full-blown form

在1998年

in 1998 --

B計劃全面面世 --

something called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

所謂數碼千禧年版權法 (DMCA)。

It was a complicated piece of legislation, a lot of moving parts.

它是一項複雜的法例，含有很多活動的部份。

But the main thrust of the DMCA

但DMCA的主旨

was that it was legal to sell you

是向你銷售

uncopyable digital material --

無法複製的數碼材料是合法的 --

except that there's no such things as uncopyable digital material.

只是無法複製的數碼材料並不存在。

It would be, as Ed Felton once famously said,

這就像 Ed Felton 的一句名言，

"Like handing out water

"像遞出

that wasn't wet."

不濕的水一樣。"

Bits are copyable. That's what computers do.

數碼位元是可以複製的。這正是電腦的功能。

That is a side effect of their ordinary operation.

這是普通電腦操作的副作用。

So in order to fake the ability

所以為了假裝

to sell uncopyable bits,

有售賣無法複製的位元的能力，

the DMCA also made it legal

DMCA亦把

to force you to use systems

強制你使用會破壞你的器材的複製功能的系統

that broke the copying function of your devices.

定為合法。

Every DVD player and game player

每一部你帶回家的DVD放影機和遊戲機

and television and computer you brought home --

以及電視機和電腦 --

no matter what you thought you were getting when you bought it --

無論在購買時你以為會得到的東西 --

could be broken by the content industries,

都可被內容供應行業毀壞，

if they wanted to set that as a condition of selling you the content.

如果他們要把它定為售賣內容給你的一項條件。

And to make sure you didn't realize,

為了使你不察覺，

or didn't enact their capabilities

或者不去使用

as general purpose computing devices,

一般運算器的功能

they also made it illegal

他們也把

for you to try to reset

重設那些內容的複製性

the copyability of that content.

定為非法。

The DMCA marks the moment

DMCA標誌著

when the media industries

媒體工業

gave up on the legal system

放棄區別

of distinguishing between legal and illegal copying

合法和非法複製的法律制度

and simply tried to prevent copying

並且，轉為簡單地

through technical means.

嘗試阻止複製的那一個時刻。

Now the DMCA had, and is continuing to have, a lot of complicated effects,

現在DMCA已經，而且還會繼續，帶來很多複雜的影響，

but in this one domain, limiting sharing,

但在這一個範疇，限制共享的範疇上，

it has mostly not worked.

它差不多完全無效。

And the main reason it hasn't worked

它不行的主要原因是

is the Internet has turned out to be far more popular and far more powerful

網際網絡遠比任何人想像的

than anyone imagined.

更受歡迎和更有力。

The mixtape, the fanzine,

混音帶、友儕之間的雜誌，

that was nothing compared to what we're seeing now

根本無法可與網際網絡

with the Internet.

比擬。

We are in a world

我們身處一個世界

where most American citizens

那裡大多數超過12歲的

over the age of 12

美國公民

share things with each other online.

都會與他人在網上共享一些東西。

We share written things, we share images,

我們共享書寫的東西，我們共享影像，

we share audio, we share video.

我們共享音頻，我們共享影片。

Some of the stuff we share is stuff we've made.

有些共享的東西是我們自己製作的。

Some of the stuff we share is stuff we've found.

有些共享的東西是我們找到的。

Some of the stuff we share

有些共享的東西是

is stuff we've made out of what we've found,

從我們找到的東西再製作出來的。

and all of it horrifies those industries.

這些都令那些工業感到害怕。

So PIPA and SOPA

所以PIPA和SOPA

are round two.

是第二回合。

But where the DMCA was surgical --

DMCA屬外科手術式的 --

we want to go down into your computer,

我們想進入你的電腦，

we want to go down into your television set, down into your game machine,

我們想進入你的電視機，進入你的遊戲機，

and prevent it from doing

去阻止那些在售貨店裡他們告訴你

what they said it would do at the store --

所能做得到的功能的運作。

PIPA and SOPA are nuclear

PIPA和SOPA則是核武

and they're saying, we want to go anywhere in the world

他們說，我想去地球任何角落

and censor content.

和審查內容。

Now the mechanism, as I said, for doing this,

現在達成這目的的機制，像我所說的，

is you need to take out anybody

是要你拿掉

pointing to those IP addresses.

任何指向那些網址的人士。

You need to take them out of search engines,

你要把他們從搜索引擎拿掉，

you need to take them out of online directories,

你要把他們從網上目錄拿掉，

you need to take them out of user lists.

你要把他們從用戶名單拿掉。

And because the biggest producers of content on the Internet

由於互聯網上最大的內容生產商

are not Google and Yahoo,

並非谷歌或雅虎，

they're us,

而是我們，

we're the people getting policed.

我們正是受到監控的對象。

Because in the end,

由於最終

the real threat

實施PIPA和SOPA

to the enactment of PIPA and SOPA

的真正威脅

is our ability to share things with one another.

是我們與其他人共享事物的能力。

So what PIPA and SOPA risk doing

所以PIPA和SOPA犯險

is taking a centuries-old legal concept,

把歷史悠久的法律概念，

innocent until proven guilty,

被證實有罪前是無辜的，

and reversing it --

扭轉過來變成 --

guilty until proven innocent.

被證實無辜前是有罪的。

You can't share

你不能共享

until you show us

除非先向我們證明

that you're not sharing something

你並非共享一些

we don't like.

我們不喜歡的東西。

Suddenly, the burden of proof for legal versus illegal

突然間，要證明合法與非法的責任

falls affirmatively on us

肯定地落在我們身上

and on the services

以及那些可能

that might be offering us any new capabilities.

為我們提供新功能的服務上。

And if it costs even a dime

即使只要一分錢的成本

to police a user,

去監控一名用戶，

that will crush a service

那已足以毀掉

with a hundred million users.

一項擁有上億萬用戶的服務。

So this is the Internet they have in mind.

這就是他們心目中想要的互聯網。

Imagine this sign everywhere --

想像一下隨處可見這樣一個標誌 --

except imagine it doesn't say College Bakery,

除了想像它不是叫做學院麵包店，

imagine it says YouTube

想像它叫做YouTube

and Facebook and Twitter.

或Facebook和Twitter。

Imagine it says TED,

想像它叫做TED，

because the comments can't be policed

這些評論

at any acceptable cost.

在任何可接受的代價下都不可受到監控。

The real effects of SOPA and PIPA

SOPA和PIPA真正的影響

are going to be different than the proposed effects.

將會與其建議的影響不同。

The threat, in fact,

它們的威脅，事實上，

is this inversion of the burden of proof,

是舉證責任的倒罝，

where we suddenly

在我們得到自由去創作、

are all treated like thieves

去製作和共享的每一刻裡

at every moment we're given the freedom to create,

我們突然間

to produce or to share.

覺得都被看待成小偷一樣。

And the people who provide those capabilities to us --

那些向我們提供這些功能的人們 --

the YouTubes, the Facebooks, the Twitters and TEDs --

YouTube、Facebook、Twitter和TED的員工 --

are in the business

變成了經營須要監控我們

of having to police us,

的生意，

or being on the hook for contributory infringement.

又或者可能成為侵權的共犯。

There's two things you can do

有兩件事你可以做的

to help stop this --

去幫我們制止此事 --

a simple thing and a complicated thing,

一件簡單和一件複雜的事，

an easy thing and a hard thing.

一件容易和一件困難的事，

The simple thing, the easy thing, is this:

簡單容易的事是:

if you're an American citizen,

如果你是美國公民，

call your representative, call your senator.

請你致電你的眾議員，致電你的參議員。

When you look at

當你看到

the people who co-signed on the SOPA bill,

共同簽署SOPA法案的人，

people who've co-signed on PIPA,

共同簽署PIPA法案的人，

what you see is that they have cumulatively received

你看到的是他們

millions and millions of dollars

從傳統的媒體工業合共收取了

from the traditional media industries.

數以百萬計的金錢。

You don't have millions and millions of dollars,

你沒有數以百萬的美元，

but you can call your representatives,

但你可致電你的眾議員，

and you can remind them that you vote,

你可提醒他們你有投票權，

and you can ask not to be treated like a thief,

你可要求不要被當作小偷，

and you can suggest that you would prefer

你可建議你寧願

that the Internet not be broken.

網際網絡不被破壞。

And if you're not an American citizen,

如果你並非美國公民，

you can contact American citizens that you know

你可聯絡你認識的美國公民

and encourage them to do the same.

並鼓勵他們做同樣的事情。

Because this seems like a national issue,

因為這看起來像是單一國家的問題，

but it is not.

但事實並非如此。

These industries will not be content

這些行業並不滿足於

with breaking our Internet.

單單破壞我們的網絡。

If they break it, they will break it for everybody.

如果要破壞它，他們會破壞所有人的。

That's the easy thing.

這是容易的事。

That's the simple thing.

這是簡單的事。

The hard thing is this:

困難的那件事是這樣:

get ready, because more is coming.

請充份準備，因為陸續有來。

SOPA is simply a reversion of COICA,

SOPA簡單地只是反轉了COICA，

which was purposed last year, which did not pass.

那是去年提議但沒被通過的法案。

And all of this goes back

而這一切可以追溯到

to the failure of the DMCA

DMCA未能

to disallow sharing as a technical means.

以技術手段禁止共享。

And the DMCA goes back to the Audio Home Recording Act,

DMCA又可追溯到家居錄音法，

which horrified those industries.

那條令到這些行業害怕的法例。

Because the whole business

因為

of actually suggesting that someone is breaking the law

實際暗示有人違法

and then gathering evidence and proving that,

然後收集證據去證明它的整件事，

that turns out to be really inconvenient.

原來真的是很不方便的。

"We'd prefer not to do that,"

"我們並不想那樣做"

says the content industries.

內容工業說。

And what they want is not to have to do that.

其實他們希望的是不必要那樣做。

They don't want legal distinctions

他們不想定下

between legal and illegal sharing.

合法和非法共享的法律區別。

They just want the sharing to go away.

他們只想讓共享消失。

PIPA and SOPA are not oddities, they're not anomalies,

PIPA和SOPA並非怪事，它們並非異常現象，

they're not events.

它們也不單是一些事件。

They're the next turn of this particular screw,

它們是進一步上緊這一口特別的螺絲，

which has been going on 20 years now.

而到現在為止這已持續了20年。

And if we defeat these, as I hope we do,

如果我們打倒它們，我希望我們成功，

more is coming.

它們還會陸續有來。

Because until we convince Congress

因為直至我們說服國會

that the way to deal with copyright violation

處理侵犯版權的做法

is the way copyright violation was dealt with with Napster, with YouTube,

應像處理Napster和YouTube侵犯版權那樣做，

which is to have a trial with all the presentation of evidence

就是進行在民主社會中所見

and the hashing out of facts and the assessment of remedies

透過羅列證據

that goes on in democratic societies.

以及核對事實和評估補救措施的一次審訊。

That's the way to handle this.

這才是處理這個問題的適當做法。

In the meantime,

在此期間，

the hard thing to do is to be ready.

困難的事是要做好準備。

Because that's the real message of PIPA and SOPA.

因為這是PIPA和SOPA真正的訊息。

Time Warner has called

時代華納曾作出呼喚

and they want us all back on the couch,

他們想我們回到沙發上，

just consuming --

只事消費 --

not producing, not sharing --

不事生產，不要共享 --

and we should say, "No."

而我們應該說，"不"。

Thank you.

謝謝!

(Applause)

(掌聲)