Lawrence Lessig: Re-examining the remix

譯者: yi-ju chen 審譯者: Ann Lee

I want to talk about

我要談論的是

what we learn from conservatives.

我們可以從保守派學到什麼。

And I'm at a stage in life where I'm yearning for my old days,

我現在很懷念以前的日子，

so I want to confess to you

所以我要向你們承認

that when I was a kid,

我還是個小孩的時候，

indeed, I was a conservative.

我確實是一位保守派成員

I was a Young Republican, a Teenage Republican,

我曾經是一位青少年共和黨員，

a leader in the Teenage Republicans.

是青少共和黨員的領導著。

Indeed, I was the youngest member

事實上，在1980的大會中

of any delegation

Ronald Regan被提名為

in the 1980 convention that elected Ronald Reagan

代表共和黨的總統競選者時，

to be the Republican nominee for president.

我是被委派的人當中最年輕的領導者。

Now, I know what you're thinking.

我知道你們在想什麼

(Laughter)

(笑)

You're thinking, "That's not what the Internets say."

你們在想：網路上不是這樣說的

You're thinking, "Wikipedia doesn't say this fact."

你們在想：維基百科並沒有說這件事。

And indeed, this is just one of the examples

事實上，這只是許多

of the junk that flows across the tubes

流竄在網路上那些垃圾傳言

in these Internets here.

的其中一則而已。

Wikipedia reports that this guy,

維基百科報導這個傢伙，

this former congressman from Erie, Pennsylvania

這個來自Pennsylvania州的前國會議員

was, at the age of 20, one of the youngest people

在20歲的時候

at the Republican National Convention,

是共和黨全國代表大會中最年輕成員之一

but it's just not true.

但這根本不是真的

(Laughter)

（笑）

Indeed, it drives me so nuts, let me just change this little fact here.

事實上這徹底惹毛我了，讓我來修改一下這段話吧。

(Laughter)

（笑）

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

All right. Okay, so ... perfect.

好了。這樣就對了!

Perfect.

很完美。

(Laughter)

（笑）

Okay, speaker Lawrence Lessig, right.

好，演講者Lawrence Lessig，對吧？

Okay.

好的。

Finally, truth will be brought here.

終於，事實要被帶來這了。

Okay, see? It's done. It's almost done. Here we go.

好的，看到了嗎？快好了，就快好了。看吧。

"... Youngest Republican," okay, we're finished.

「...最年輕的共和黨員」好的，這樣就好可以了。

That's it. Please save this.

就這樣。然後存檔。

Great, here we go.

這樣就可以了。

And ... Wikipedia is fixed, finally.

那麼，維基百科上的錯誤就更正了，終於阿。

Okay, but no, this is really besides the point.

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 --

但是其實當我們說到保守派時我要你們想想--

not so much this issue of the 1980 convention --

1980年時大會並不是個熱門議題 --

the thing to think about is this:

我們要探討的事這個:

They go to church.

他們上教堂。

Now, you know, I mean, a lot of people go to church.

你知道的，我是指許多人都上教堂。

I'm not talking about that only conservatives go to church.

我並不是指只有那些保守派才上教堂。

And I'm not talking about the God thing.

我也不是要談論上帝。

I don't want to get into that, you know; that's not my point.

我不想說太多，你知道的，那不是我要說得重點。

They go to church, by which I mean,

我說到他們會上教堂的意思是，

they do lots of things for free for each other.

他們免費的為彼此做很多事。

They hold potluck dinners.

他們舉辦共享餐會。

Indeed, they sell books about potluck dinners.

事實上，他們還販售關於共享餐會的書。

They serve food to poor people.

他們提供免費食物給窮困的人。

They share, they give,

他們分享，他們給予。

they give away for free.

他們無償的付出。

And it's the very same people

並且，也同樣是這群人

leading Wall Street firms

領導著華爾街的公司

who, on Sundays, show up

這些人，在星期日，會現身

and share.

並分享。

And not only food, right.

而且，也並不只是分享食物。

These very same people

同樣的這一群人

are strong believers, in lots of contexts,

在市場的限制下，

in the limits on the markets.

是堅守信念的人。

They are in many important places

他們在很多重要的大會

against markets.

對抗現有的市場。

Indeed, they, like all of us, celebrate this kind of relationship.

事實上，他們就像我們所有人一樣，頌揚這種交際關係

But they're very keen that we don't

但他們很敏銳的堤防，

let money drop into that relationship,

不讓金錢介入這種關係之中，

else it turns into something like this.

否則事情會變成像這個樣子

They want to regulate us, those conservatives,

那些保守派的，想要控制我們，

to stop us from allowing the market to spread in those places.

想要阻止我們允許市場擴展到其他地方。

Because they understand:

因為他們明白，

There are places for the market

有些地方是容許這個市場存在的，

and places where the market should not exist,

然而也有一些地方是這些市場不該存在的。

where we should be free

這些地方應該是自由且免費的，

to enjoy the fellowship of others.

是彼此享受情誼的地方。

They recognize: Both of these things have to live together.

他們知道，這兩件事情都是必不可缺的。

And the second great thing about conservatives:

然後，第二件有關保守派的一個很了不起的是:

they get ecology.

他們了解這個生態。

Right, it was the first great Republican president of the 20th century

沒錯，這是第一個20世紀的偉大共和黨總統

who taught us about

教導了我們

environmental thinking -- Teddy Roosevelt.

環境生態保護 --西奧多·羅斯福(Teddy Roosevelt.)

They first taught us about ecology

他們首先教導我們這個生態

in the context of natural resources.

有關地球資源。

And then they began to teach us in the context of

燃後他們開始教導我們有關

innovation, economics.

創新力和經濟。

They understand, in that context,

他們了解，在那些情況下--

"free." They understand "free" is an important

是免費的 -- 他們了解免費和分享是一個很重要的

essential part of the

也是不可或缺的

cultural ecology as well.

文化生態之一。

That's the thing I want you to think about them.

這就是我想要你們去思考有關他們的事。

Now, I know

現在我知道，

you don't believe me, really, here.

我說這個，你們不相信我。

So here's exhibit number one.

所以這是第一場展示會。

I want to share with you my latest hero, Julian Sanchez,

我想要和你們分享我最近的一位英雄， Julian Sanchez，

a libertarian who works at the, for many people,

他是一位圖書館管理員，但是很多人都認為

"evil" Cato Institute.

他在一個叫做"邪惡"的卡托研究所(Cato Institute)的地方工作。

Okay, so Julian made this video.

因為這樣Julian做了一部短片。

He's a terrible producer of videos,

他是一個很糟的短片編輯者，

but it's great content, so I'm going to give you a little bit of it.

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。

So here he is beginning.

就從這裡開始吧。

Julian Sanchez: I'm going to make an observation about the way

Julian Sanchez:我現在要來做一項觀察

remix culture seems to be evolving ...

混搭文化是如何發展的...

Larry Lessig: So what he does is he begins to tell us

Larry Lessig:所以他的做法就是先告訴我們

about these three videos.

三部短片。

This is this fantastic Brat Pack remix

這是一個很酷的小子包混音(brat pack remix)

set to Lisztomania.

被稱為Lisztomania

Which, of course, spread virally.

當然，這很快就在網路上流傳開了。

Hugely successful.

非常非常的成功。

(Music)

(音樂)

And then some people from Brooklyn saw it.

然後有一些人在布魯克林(Brooklyn)看到了這短片

They decided they wanted to do the same.

他們決定也要這樣做。

(Music)

(音樂)

And then, of course, people from San Fransisco saw it.

然後，有人在舊金山(San Fransisco)也看到了這部短片。

And San Franciscans thought they had to do the same as well.

舊金山的人認為他們也要這樣做部短片。

(Music)

(音樂)

And so they're beautiful, but this libertarian

這些短片多麼美麗，但是這位圖書管理員

has some important lessons he wants us to learn from this.

有幾個很重要的訊息，想要我們從這學習。

Here's lesson number one.

這是第一個:

JS: There's obviously also something really deeply great about this.

JS:很顯然的，這是一個能讓你打從心裡覺得很棒的東西。

They are acting in the sense that they're

他們以感覺來模仿

emulating the original mashup.

原版的混搭音樂。

And the guy who shot it obviously has a strong eye

做這影片的人很明顯的有一種很強的觀察力

and some experience with video editing.

還有一些影片編輯的經驗

But this is also basically just a group of friends

但是，基本上，這只是一群朋友

having an authentic social moment

處於一個真實的社交狀態

and screwing around together.

一起糊鬧一番。

It should feel familiar and kind of resonate

對那些曾經自唱或是餐加舞會的人來說

for anyone who's had a sing-a-long or a dance party

會覺得很熟悉，甚至有一種共鳴，

with a group of good friends.

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

JS: 這和我們之前看到的影片非常的不一樣

because here, remix isn't just about

因為在這，混搭不是單單的

an individual doing something alone in his basement;

一個人獨自的在自己的地下室製作一部短片;

it becomes an act of social creativity.

這變成了社群活動的一種。

And it's not just that it yields

但是這不是

a different kind of product at the end,

最後發展出的新產品

it's that potentially it changes the way that we relate to each other.

而是一部短片有一種潛力改變我們和其他人的關係。

All of our normal social interactions

我們所有的社交互動

become a kind of invitation

變成了一種邀請

to this sort of collective expression.

變成了混搭這種集體表現。

It's our real social lives themselves

我們真正的社群生活

that are transmuted into art.

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

JS:一個混搭音樂是有關

individuals using our shared culture

不同的人用我們所共享的文化

as a kind of language to communicate something to an audience.

當做一種語言去和一位觀眾溝通。

Stage two, social remix,

第二階段，社群混搭，

is really about using it to mediate

其實是使用這個方式去傳達

people's relationships to each other.

人和人之間的關係。

First, within each video,

首先，在每個短片內，

the Brat Pack characters are used as a kind of template

小包子(brat pack)人物被當作一種模型架構

for performing the social reality of each group.

讓每個團體演奏出他們真實的社群

But there's also a dialogue between the videos,

但是這裡面，每個短片之中也有一段對話，

where, once the basic structure is established,

當基本架構被設定後，

it becomes a kind of platform

這變成了一種平台

for articulating the similarities and differences

給團體的社群與真實的話語中

between the groups' social and physical worlds.

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,

LL:這對我來說，

the critical key to what

什麼是關鍵中的關鍵

Julian has to say ...

Julian想告訴大家。

JS: Copyright policy isn't just about

JS:版權政策不單單只是有關

how to incentivize the production

如何刺激

of a certain kind of artistic commodity;

某個藝術產品的數量;

it's about what level of control

這是有關，要在哪種程度上的控制

we're going to permit to be exercised

我們要允許，被實踐

over our social realities --

超越我們現今的社會現象。

social realities that are now inevitably

現在的社會現象，無法避免的，

permeated by pop culture.

被流行文化瀰漫在空中。

I think it's important that we

我認為一件很要的事就是我們

keep these two different kinds of public goods in mind.

要讓這兩種不同的公共產品放在心中

If we're only focused on how to maximize

如我我們只專注在如何

the supply of one,

把其中一樣供給最大化，

I think we risk suppressing

我想我們面臨著減少

this different and richer

差異性與豐富性

and, in some ways, maybe even more important one.

並且，在某方面來講，或許有一個更重要的。

LL: Right. Bingo. Point.

LL:沒錯。賓果。重點。

Freedom needs this opportunity

自由需要這個機會

to both have the commercial success

給巨大的商業努力

of the great commercial works

成功的機會

and the opportunity

也要有一個機會

to build this different kind of culture.

去建構這些不同種的文化。

And for that to happen, you need

為了實現這個，你需要

ideas like fair use to be central and protected,

一些點子，像是合法使用範圍被重視與保護

to enable this kind of innovation,

去開啟這種創新力，

as this libertarian tells us,

像是這個自由主義者告訴我們的，

between these two creative cultures,

在這兩個多元文化之中，

a commercial and a sharing culture.

可以有一個商業文化與共享文化。

The point is they, he, here,

重點是，他們，這個男的，這邊

gets that culture.

了解那個文化。

Now, my concern is, we Dems,

現在，我擔心的是，我們民主黨的，

too often, not so much.

太常，或許沒那麼常。

All right, take for example this great company.

好吧，那拿這個大公司舉個例子好了。

In the good old days when this Republican ran that company,

在以前段那美好日子，當這個共和黨的經營那間公司時，

their greatest work was work that built on the past, right.

他們最大的貢獻都是以前所建立的貢獻。

All of the great Disney works

所有迪士尼的那些輝煌成就

were works that took works that

都是在公有領域中的成就，

were in the public domain and remixed them,

然後經過了重新組合與調整

or waited until they entered the public domain to remix them,

或者是等到這些專利權失效後，然後再重新組合這些創作，

to celebrate this add-on remix creativity.

去慶祝這個附屬的重新組合這個創意行為。

Indeed, Mickey Mouse himself, of course,

確實，米老鼠他自己當然，

as "Steamboat Willie,"

如同"汽船威利，"

is a remix of the then, very dominant,

是之後的一個重新組合，非常的佔優勢

very popular "Steamboat Bill"

非常熱門的"氣船威利"

by Buster Keaton.

Buster Keaton所做的。

This man was a remixer extraordinaire.

這個人是一個非凡的重新組合者。

He is the celebration and ideal

他就是這種創意的

of exactly this kind of creativity.

慶祝者與理想者。

But then the company passes

但是之後這個公司面臨了

through this dark stage

這個黑暗的階段

to this Democrat.

到了這個民主黨。

Wildly different.

非常的不一樣。

This is the mastermind behind

這是一個策劃

the eventual passage of what we call

在背後漸漸的通過的法律，我們稱為

the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act,

the Sonny Bono版權定義延伸法，

extending the term of existing copyrights

來延伸現有的版權擁有權限

by 20 years,

到20年，

so that no one could do to Disney

這樣一來就沒有人能對迪士尼做一些

what Disney did to the Brothers Grimm.

迪士尼對Nrothers Grimm所做的事情了。

Now, when we tried to challenge this,

現在，當我們想去挑戰這件事時，

going to the Supreme Court, getting the Supreme Court, the bunch of conservatives there --

我們去最高等法院，說服最高法院，也就是一對保守派的人--

if we could get them to wake up to this -- to strike it down,

如果我們可以讓他們醒來 --去終止這項法令。

we had the assistance of Nobel Prize winners

我們有諾貝爾獎得主們幫助我們

including this right-wing

包括這個右翼派的人

Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman,

諾貝爾獎得主，Milton Friedman，

who said he would join our brief

他說他會加入我們的簡報

only if the word "no brainer"

但是一定要有"沒腦"這個字

was in the brief somewhere.

在簡報的某些地方被提及

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

But apparently, no brains

但很明顯的，沒腦

existed in this place

存在過這個地方

when Democrats passed and signed

當名主黨通過然後簽下了

this bill into law.

這個法案定成法律。

Now, tiny little quibble of a footnote:

這個一個小小的雙關註腳，

Sonny Bono, you might say, was a Republican,

Sonny Bono，你可能說，他是個共和黨派的，

but I don't buy it.

但是我才不受騙。

This guy is no Republican.

這個人絕不是共和黨派的人。

Okay, for a second example,

那麼，第二個例子，

think about this cultural hero,

如果想一下這個文化英雄，

icon on the Left,

左邊的這個偶像，

creator of this character.

這個角色的創造人。

Look at the site that he built: "Star Wars" MashUps,

看它所建構的網站:星海戰爭版的混搭

inviting people to come and use their creative energy

邀請大家參觀那個網頁，然後使用他們的創意

to produce a new generation of attention

對於這個非凡、重要的文化象徵

towards this extraordinarily important cultural icon.

去發展出這個非凡、重要的文化象徵。

Read the license.

看一下這個許可證。

The license for these remixers

給這些混搭者的許可證

assigns all of the rights

把這些所有混搭的權利

to the remix back to Lucas.

歸還給Lucas

The mashup is owned by Lucas.

這個混搭音樂是屬於Lucas的。

Indeed, anything you add to the mashup,

確實，你能加任何東西進這個混搭，

music you might add,

你可以加入新的音樂，

Lucas has a worldwide perpetual right

Lucas有一個全球性並且永久的權利

to exploit that for free.

把這個擁有權分享於大眾，免費化。

There is no creator here to be recognized.

這邊沒有創作者被提及到。

The creator doesn't have any rights.

創作者沒有任何的權利。

The creator is a sharecropper in this story.

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)

And we should remember

然後我們必須記得

who employed the sharecroppers:

誰雇用了這些收收益分成的佃農:

the Democrats, right?

民主黨的，對嗎?

So the point is the Republicans here

所這種點是共和黨在這

recognize that there's a certain need

發覺，就是所有權，

of ownership,

確實有存在的必要，

a respect for ownership,

一個對所有權的尊重，

the respect we should give the creator,

一個我們應該給予作者的尊重，

the remixer, the owner, the property owner,

把尊重給予混搭者，擁有者，土地擁有者，

the copyright owner

和版權擁有者

of this extraordinarily powerful stuff,

給他們這些無比、強大的東西一個尊重，

and not a generation of sharecroppers.

而不是那些收收益分成的佃農。

Now, I think there are lessons we should learn here,

現在，我想這邊有幾個教訓我們需要學習，

lessons about openness.

就是有關開放

Our lives are sharing activities,

我們的整個生活是一個共享的活動，

at least in part.

至少在某部分。

Even for the head of Goldman Sachs,

儘管是Goldman Sachs的領導者，

at least in part.

至少在某些部分。

And for that sharing activity to happen, we have to have

那為了讓這些分享活動可以實現，我們必須要

well-protected spaces of fair use.

給合法使用範圍，一個完善的保護範圍

That's number one. Number two:

這是第一點。再來是第二點:

This ecology of sharing

這個分享的生態

needs freedom

需要自由

within which to create.

在自由中創造。

Freedom, which means without permission from anyone,

自由，是指不需要任何人的允許，

the ability to create.

一種創造的能力。

And number three: We need to

第三點:我們需要

respect the creator,

尊重發明者，

the creator of these remixes

這些混搭的發明者

through rights that are

經由法律

directly tied to them.

直接的與他們相連。

Now, this explains the right-wing nonprofit

這個解釋了右翼黨派的

Creative Commons.

創用CC(Creative Common)非營利團體。

Actually, it's not a right-wing nonprofit,

事實上，這不是指右翼黨派是一個非營利團體，

but of course -- let me just tie it here --

但是當然--讓我聯想到這--

the Creative Commons, which is

創用CC(Creative Common)，是一個

offering authors this simple way to mark their content

提供作者們一個自由並且簡單的方式去

with the freedoms

去標示他們的內容是否為免費

they intended to carry.

由他們自己決定。

So that we go from a "all rights reserved" world

所以我們從一個"保有所有權利"這個詞

to a "some rights reserved" world

轉換成"保有部分權利"這樣的一個詞

so that people can know the freedoms they have attached to the content,

所以大家知道他們使用的內容的自由範圍定界，

building and creating

基於這種

on the basis of this

被著作權保護的創意嘉做。

creative copyrighted work.

去建構與創造。

These tools that we built

我們建構的這些這些工作

enable this sharing in parts

促使這個分享在一些部分

through licenses that make it clear

經由證照把分享規則清楚化

and a freedom to create

並且提供一個自由，

without requiring permission first

去創造時不必先請求允許

because the permission has already been granted

因為這個請求已經受予同意了，

and a respect for the creator because it builds upon

以這個尊重創造者的方式，因為這新的作品建構在

a copyright the creator

這個創造者的擁有權

has licensed freely.

已經授權為免費資源。

And it explains the vast right-wing conspiracy

然而這解釋了這個巨大的右翼的陰謀

that's obviously developed around these licenses,

非常明顯的發展於這些許可

as now more than 350 million digital objects

現在，以3億五千多萬的數位資訊

are out there, licensed freely

以這種方式

in this way.

在網路上成為免費資源。

Now that picture of an ecology of creativity,

現在一個創造力的生態

the picture of an ecology

一個生態的輪廓

of balanced creativity,

一個平衡的創造力

is that the ecology of creativity we have right now?

是否為我們現在所擁有的呢?

Well, as you all know,

其實，就像你們所知道的，

not many of us believe we do.

很多人並不相信我們擁有這種平衡。

I tripped on the reality of this ecology of creativity

我在這種創造力的現實生態中旅遊

just last week.

僅僅一個星期。

I created a video which was based

我錄製了一部短片，

on a Wireside Chat that I'd given,

放在一個叫做"Wireside Chat"的廣播

and I uploaded it to YouTube.

然後我把這個影片上傳到YouTube.

I then got this email from YouTube

然後我收到了一封YouTube寄來的信

weirdly notifying me

很奇怪的通知我說

that there was content in that

我的影片裡有一些內容

owned by the mysterious WMG

是神秘的WMG一個公司所擁有的

that matched their content ID.

那段影片內容與他們的內容ID相符.

So I didn't think much about it.

之後我沒再繼續想這件事情。

And then on Twitter, somebody said to me,

後來在Twitter，有些人跟我說

"Your talk on YouTube was DMCA'd. Was that your purpose?"

"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?"

imagining that I had this deep conspiracy

假設果我有這個陰謀

to reveal the obvious flaws in the DMCA.

去揭發這個清楚的錯誤在這個"數字千年版權法"

I answered, "No." I didn't even think about it.

我回答，"不。"我連想都沒想過這個。

But then I went to the site

但是之後我到了這個網站

and all of the audio in my site had been silenced.

發現了所有的音樂檔在我的網站都被禁音了。

My whole 45-minute video

我整整45分鐘的影片

had been silenced

被禁音了

because there were snippets in that video,

因為影片內的幾個片段

a video about fair use,

一個影片有關合法使用範圍，

that included Warner Music Group music.

包含了WMG這個音樂公司。

Now, interestingly,

現在，非常有趣的，

they still sold ads for that music,

他們現在持續的用那個音樂販賣這些廣告，

if you played the silent video.

如果你播放這個被禁因的影片。

You could still buy the music,

妳依然可以買這個音樂，

but you couldn't hear anything

但是妳聽不到任何東西

because it had been silenced.

因為這個影片被禁音了

So I did what the current regime

所以我做了現行制度

says I must do

所要求我做的

to be free to use

去使用免費的

YouTube to talk about fair use.

YouTube去表達有關合法使用範圍。

I went to this site, and I had to answer these questions.

我去了這個網頁，然後我必須回答這些問題。

And then in an extraordinarily

然後在一個非凡似的

Bart Simpson-like, juvenile way

辛普森的小孩Bart

you've actually got to type out these words

你必須確實的打出這些字

and get them right

然後給他們這個權利

to reassert your freedom to speak.

才可以從新為你的自由而發言。

And I felt like I was in third grade again.

我覺得我好像又回到了國小三年級。

"I will not put tacks on the teacher's chair.

我不會把圖釘放在老師的椅子上。

I will not put tacks on the teacher's chair."

我不會放圖釘在老師的椅子上。

This is absurd.

這個非常的愚蠢可笑。

It is outrageous.

這是非常可恥的。

It is an extraordinary perversion of the system of freedom

這是一個無比墮落的自由體制

we should be encouraging.

我們應該鼓勵。

And the question I ask you is: Who's fighting it?

有個問題我想問你的是:誰在跟這個體制對抗嗎?

Well, interestingly, in the last presidential election,

不過，非常有趣的，在以前過去的總統選舉，

who was the number one, active

誰是第一名，

opponent of this system of regulation

規章體制的對手

in online speech?

在網路發言上?

John McCain.

是約翰·麥肯。

Letter after letter attacking YouTube's refusal

一封又一封攻擊YouTube的反對信

to be more respectful of fair use

為了一個更加尊重合法使用範圍

with their extraordinary notice and take down system,

和他們的非凡通知，然後關閉系統。

that led his campaign so many times

這個行動導致了他的戰役非常多次的

to be thrown off the Internet.

從網路上被扔掉。

Now, that was the story of me then,

現在，那個故事變成了我的故事，

my good old days of right-wing lunacy.

在很久很久以前的日子，我在右翼黨派時的愚蠢行為。

Let me come back to now,

回到今天，

now when I'm a little leftist --

現在當我有一點偏向左翼黨派時--

I'm certainly left-handed, so at least a lefty --

我確實是用左手寫字，所以至少有點"左派"--

And I wonder, can we on the Left

然後我想，我們可不可以在左派

expect to build this

期望著去建構這個

ecology of freedom, now,

自由生態，在現今，

in a world where

在一個事情

we know the extraordinarily powerful

在那我們知道不平凡的強大力量

influences against it,

影響對抗著這個，

where even icons of the Left like this

儘管向是左邊的這些象徵人物

entertain and push bills

享受著推倡議案

that would effectively ban the requirement

這些議案會有效的禁止要求

of open access for government-funded research?

開放允許給政府金錢援助的研究?

The president, who has supported

種統已經支持一個過程

a process that secretly negotiates agreements,

一個祕密著談判協定的過程，

which effectively lock us into the insane system

這個協定有效的把我們鎖於這個瘋狂的制度

of DMCA

這個數字千年版權法(DMCA)

that we have adopted

也就是們現在所採取的

and likely lock us down a path of three strikes, you're out

然後非常可能把我們鎖在一個三振的道路，你出局了

that, of course, the rest of the world are increasingly adopting.

當然，這個世界的其他部分則快速的接納這個把權法。

Not a single example of reform

直到現在，一個改革的例子

has been produced yet.

都沒有。

And we're not going to see this change

然後我們不會看到這個改變

in this system

在這個體制

anytime soon.

在任何短時間內。

So here's the lessons of openness

所以這裡是開放的教訓

that I think we need to learn.

我想這是我們該學習的。

Openness is a commitment

開放是一種承諾

to a certain set of values.

對一套價值觀念。

We need to speak of those values.

我們必須跟其他人說這一套價值觀念。

The value of freedom. It's a value of community.

自由的價值觀念。這是一個社區的價值觀念

It's a value of the limits in regulation.

這是給有限的法規一個價值觀念。

It's a value respecting the creator.

這是一個給予創造者的價值觀念。

Now, if we can learn those values

現在，如果我們可以從學習這些價值觀念

from at least some influences on the Right,

至少從從右翼黨派中有一些影響

if we can take them and incorporate them,

如果我們可以接受他們並且包含他們，

maybe we could do a little trade.

或許我們可以做一個小小的交換條件。

We learn those values on the Left,

我們從右派的學到了這些觀念，

and maybe they'll do health care

或許他們會做健保

or global warming legislation or something in the Right.

或者是全球暖化條約或右黨的其他事情

Anyway, please join me

不管怎樣，請加入我

in teaching these values.

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)