year, but the year before that, September 2010. And I got a phone call from my friend

年，但前年，2010年9月。我接到了一個電話 從我的朋友

Peter. "Aaron," he said, "there’s an amazing bill that you have to take a look at." "What

＆quot;亞倫，＆quot;他說，＆quot;有一個驚人的法案，你必須看看.＆quot;＆quot;什麼。

is it?" I said. "It’s called COICA, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeiting

是嗎?"我說。"它被稱為COICA，打擊在線侵權和假冒。

Act." "But, Peter," I said, "I don’t care about copyright law. Maybe you’re right.

法.""但是，彼得，"我說，"我不關心版權法。也許你是對的。

Maybe Hollywood is right. But either way, what’s the big deal? I’m not going to

也許好萊塢是對的。但無論如何，這有什麼大不了的？我不會

waste my life fighting over a little issue like copyright. Healthcare, financial reform—those

浪費我的生命爭奪版權這樣的小問題。醫療保健，金融改革，這些

are the issues that I work on, not something obscure like copyright law." I could hear

是我工作的問題，而不是像版權法這樣晦澀的東西."我可以聽到。

Peter grumbling in the background. "Look, I don’t have time to argue with you," he

彼得在後臺抱怨著."聽著，我沒有時間和你爭論，"他。

said, "but it doesn’t matter for right now, because this isn’t a bill about copyright."

說，"但現在並不重要，因為這不是一個關於版權的法案.&quot。

"It’s not?" "No," he said. "It’s a bill about the freedom to connect." Now I was listening.

＆quot;不是嗎＆quot;＆quot;不，＆quot;他說。 ＆quot;這是一個關於自由連接的法案.＆quot;現在我在聽。

Peter explained what you’ve all probably long since learned, that this bill would let

彼得解釋說，你們可能早就知道了，這個法案會讓... ...

the government devise a list of websites that Americans weren’t allowed to visit. On the

政府設計了一份美國人不允許訪問的網站清單。在

next day, I came up with lots of ways to try to explain this to people. I said it was a

第二天，我想了很多辦法，試圖向人們解釋這件事。我說這是一個

great firewall of America. I said it was an Internet black list. I said it was online

美國偉大的防火牆。我說這是互聯網黑名單。我說這是在線

censorship. But I think it’s worth taking a step back, putting aside all the rhetoric

審查制度。但我認為值得後退一步， 拋開所有的言辭

and just thinking for a moment about how radical this bill really was. Sure, there are lots

而只是想了一下，這個法案到底有多激進。當然，有很多

of times when the government makes rules about speech. If you slander a private figure, if

的時代，當政府制定規則的言論。如果你誹謗一個私人人物，如果...

you buy a television ad that lies to people, if you have a wild party that plays booming

你買了一個電視廣告，騙人的，如果你有一個瘋狂的聚會，播放轟轟烈烈的。

music all night, in all these cases, the government can come stop you. But this was something

音樂整夜，在所有這些情況下， 政府可以來阻止你。但這是一些

radically different. It wasn’t the government went to people and asked them to take down

徹底的不同。這不是政府去找人，並要求他們拿下。

particular material that was illegal; it shut down whole websites. Essentially, it stopped

它關閉了整個網站。基本上，它停止了

Americans from communicating entirely with certain groups. There’s nothing really like

美國人從完全與某些群體交流。沒有什麼比得上

it in U.S. law. If you play loud music all night, the government doesn’t slap you with

它在美國的法律。如果你整晚都在放大音量的音樂，政府就不會給你一巴掌。

an order requiring you be mute for the next couple weeks. They don’t say nobody can

命令要求你在接下來的幾周內保持沉默。他們沒有說任何人可以

make any more noise inside your house. There’s a specific complaint, which they ask you to

使任何更多的噪音 在你的房子。有一個具體的投訴，他們問你，以

specifically remedy, and then your life goes on.

專門補救，然後你的生活繼續。

The closest example I could find was a case where the government was at war with an adult

我能找到的最接近的例子是，政府與成年人交戰的案例

bookstore. The place kept selling pornography; the government kept getting the porn declared

書店。這個地方一直在賣色情物品；政府一直在讓色情物品被宣佈為

illegal. And then, frustrated, they decided to shut the whole bookstore down. But even

違法的。然後，他們沮喪地決定關閉整個書店。但即使

that was eventually declared unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.

最終被宣佈為違憲，違反了第一修正案。

So, you might say, surely COICA would get declared unconstitutional, as well. But I

所以，你可能會說，COICA肯定也會被宣佈違憲。但是，我

knew that the Supreme Court had a blind spot around the First Amendment, more than anything

知道最高法院有一個盲點 圍繞第一修正案，比什麼都重要。

else, more than slander or libel, more than pornography, more even than child pornography.

別的不說，比誹謗和中傷更甚，比色情更甚，甚至比兒童色情更甚。

Their blind spot was copyright. When it came to copyright, it was like the part of the

他們的盲點是版權。當涉及到版權時，它就像部分的。

justices’ brains shut off, and they just totally forgot about the First Amendment.

大法官的大腦關閉， 他們只是完全忘記了 第一修正案。

You got the sense that, deep down, they didn’t even think the First Amendment applied when

你得到的感覺是，在內心深處，他們甚至不認為第一修正案適用於當。

copyright was at issue, which means that if you did want to censor the Internet, if you

版權是有問題的，這意味著，如果你確實想審查互聯網，如果你。

wanted to come up with some way that the government could shut down access to particular websites,

想想出一些辦法，政府可以關閉對特定網站的訪問。

this bill might be the only way to do it. If it was about pornography, it probably would

這個法案可能是唯一的辦法。如果它是關於色情的，它可能會。

get overturned by courts, just like the adult bookstore case. But if you claimed it was

被法院推翻，就像成人書店案一樣。但如果你聲稱這是

about copyright, it might just sneak through.

關於版權的問題，可能就會偷偷摸摸的過去。

And that was especially terrifying, because, as you know, because copyright is everywhere.

而這是特別可怕的，因為，你知道，因為版權無處不在。

If you want to shut down WikiLeaks, it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that you’re

如果你想關閉維基解密，這是一個有點伸展，聲稱你是

doing it because they have too much pornography, but it’s not hard at all to claim that WikiLeaks

做它，因為他們有太多的色情， 但它並不難在所有聲稱，維基解密

is violating copyright, because everything is copyrighted. This speech, you know, the

是侵犯版權， 因為一切都有版權。這個演講，你知道，

thing I’m giving right now, these words are copyrighted. And it’s so easy to accidentally

我現在給的東西，這些文字是有版權的。而且它是如此容易不小心

copy something, so easy, in fact, that the leading Republican supporter of COICA, Orrin

複製的東西，如此簡單，事實上， 共和黨的主要支持者 COICA，奧林，

Hatch, had illegally copied a bunch of code into his own Senate website. So if even Orrin

哈奇，曾非法複製了一堆代碼到自己的參議院網站。所以，如果連奧林

Hatch’s Senate website was found to be violating copyright law, what’s the chance that they

哈奇的參議院網站被發現違反版權法，他們有什麼機會

wouldn’t find something they could pin on any of us?

他們就不會找我們任何一個人的麻煩嗎？

There’s a battle going on right now, a battle to define everything that happens on the Internet

現在有一場戰鬥正在進行，一場定義互聯網上發生的一切的戰鬥。

in terms of traditional things that the law understands. Is sharing a video on BitTorrent

在法律所理解的傳統事物方面。在BitTorrent上分享視頻是否

like shoplifting from a movie store? Or is it like loaning a videotape to a friend? Is

就像在電影店裡偷東西？還是像借錄像帶給朋友？是

reloading a webpage over and over again like a peaceful virtual sit-in or a violent smashing

一次又一次地重載網頁，就像一次和平的虛擬靜坐或暴力的打砸。

of shop windows? Is the freedom to connect like freedom of speech or like the freedom

的商店櫥窗？連接的自由是像言論自由，還是像 "自由"？

to murder?

謀殺？

This bill would be a huge, potentially permanent, loss. If we lost the ability to communicate

這個法案將是一個巨大的，可能是永久性的損失。如果我們失去了溝通的能力

with each other over the Internet, it would be a change to the Bill of Rights. The freedoms

在互聯網上相互交流，這將是對《權利法案》的修改。自由

guaranteed in our Constitution, the freedoms our country had been built on, would be suddenly

我們的憲法所保障的自由，我們的國家所建立的自由，將被突然間

deleted. New technology, instead of bringing us greater freedom, would have snuffed out

刪除。新技術，不但沒有給我們帶來更大的自由，反而會扼殺了。

fundamental rights we had always taken for granted. And I realized that day, talking

我們一直認為是理所當然的基本權利。我意識到，那天，說話

to Peter, that I couldn’t let that happen.

彼得，我不能讓這種情況發生。

But it was going to happen. The bill, COICA, was introduced on September 20th, 2010, a

但它是要發生的。該法案COICA於2010年9月20日提出，是一個。

Monday, and in the press release heralding the introduction of this bill, way at the

週一，在預示著該法案出臺的新聞稿中，方式是

bottom, it was scheduled for a vote on September 23rd, just three days later. And while, of

底，被安排在9月23日進行表決，僅僅三天後。而雖然

course, there had to be a vote—you can’t pass a bill without a vote—the results of

當然，必須有一個投票 - 你不能通過一個法案沒有投票 - 的結果。

that vote were already a foregone conclusion, because if you looked at the introduction

因為如果你看了介紹，你就會發現，這個投票已經是一個必然的結果了。

of the law, it wasn’t just introduced by one rogue eccentric member of Congress; it

它不僅僅是由一個無賴的偏心的國會議員提出的；它

was introduced by the chair of the Judiciary Committee and co-sponsored by nearly all the

由司法委員會主席提出，幾乎所有的議員都是共同提案人。

other members, Republicans and Democrats. So, yes, there’d be a vote, but it wouldn’t

其他成員，共和黨和民主黨。所以，是的，會有一個投票， 但它不會... ...

be much of a surprise, because nearly everyone who was voting had signed their name to the

因為幾乎每一個投票的人都在他們的名字上籤了名。

bill before it was even introduced.

法案還沒提出來，就有了。

Now, I can’t stress how unusual this is. This is emphatically not how Congress works.

現在，我不能強調這有多不尋常。這顯然不是國會的工作方式。

I’m not talking about how Congress should work, the way you see on Schoolhouse Rock.

我說的不是國會應該如何工作，就像你在 "校園搖滾 "上看到的那樣。

I mean, this is not the way Congress actually works. I mean, I think we all know Congress

我的意思是，這不是國會實際工作的方式。我的意思是，我想我們都知道國會

is a dead zone of deadlock and dysfunction. There are months of debates and horse trading

是一個僵局和功能失調的死區。有幾個月的辯論和馬匹交易

and hearings and stall tactics. I mean, you know, first you’re supposed to announce

和聽證會和拖延戰術。我的意思是，你知道，首先你應該宣佈

that you’re going to hold hearings on a problem, and then days of experts talking

你要就一個問題舉行聽證會，然後專家們談了好幾天。

about the issue, and then you propose a possible solution, you bring the experts back for their

關於這個問題，然後你提出一個可能的解決方案，你把專家帶回他們的

thoughts on that, and then other members have different solutions, and they propose those,

的想法，然後其他成員有不同的解決方案，他們提出這些。

and you spend of bunch of time debating, and there’s a bunch of trading, they get members

你花了大量的時間辯論， 有一堆的交易，他們得到的成員

over to your cause. And finally, you spend hours talking one on one with the different

在你的事業。最後，你花幾個小時的時間與不同的人一對一地交談

people in the debate, try and come back with some sort of compromise, which you hash out

辯論中的人，試圖回來與某種妥協，你有了一些妥協，你有了一些妥協

in endless backroom meetings. And then, when that’s all done, you take that, and you

在無休止的密室會議。然後，當這一切都完成了， 你把那個，你

go through it line by line in public to see if anyone has any objections or wants to make

逐字逐句地公開，看看有沒有人反對，或者想提出......。

any changes. And then you have the vote. It’s a painful, arduous process. You don’t just

任何變化。然後你要進行投票。這是一個痛苦的，艱辛的過程。你不只是

introduce a bill on Monday and then pass it unanimously a couple days later. That just

週一提出法案，幾天後再一致通過。這只是

doesn’t happen in Congress.

不發生在國會。

But this time, it was going to happen. And it wasn’t because there were no disagreements

但這一次，是要發生的。而這並不是因為沒有異議

on the issue. There are always disagreements. Some senators thought the bill was much too

在這個問題上。總是有不同意見。一些參議員認為該法案太

weak and needed to be stronger: As it was introduced, the bill only allowed the government

脆弱，需要加強。該法案在提出時，只允許政府在其規定的範圍內

to shut down websites, and these senators, they wanted any company in the world to have

關閉網站，而這些參議員， 他們希望世界上任何公司有

the power to get a website shut down. Other senators thought it was a drop too strong.

的權力，讓一個網站被關閉。其他參議員則認為，這滴力度太大。

But somehow, in the kind of thing you never see in Washington, they had all managed to

但不知何故，在華盛頓你從未見過的事情中，他們都成功地

put their personal differences aside to come together and support one bill they were persuaded

把他們的個人分歧放在一邊，支持一個他們被說服的法案。

they could all live with: a bill that would censor the Internet. And when I saw this,

他們都可以生活： 一個法案，將審查互聯網。而當我看到這個，

I realized: Whoever was behind this was good.

我意識到。不管誰是幕後黑手，都是好人

Now, the typical way you make good things happen in Washington is you find a bunch of

現在，你在華盛頓做善事的典型方式是你找到一幫...

wealthy companies who agree with you. Social Security didn’t get passed because some

有錢的公司誰同意你。社會保障沒有被通過是因為一些

brave politicians decided their good conscience couldn’t possibly let old people die starving

勇敢的政客們決定，他們的良心不可能讓老人餓死

in the streets. I mean, are you kidding me? Social Security got passed because John D.

在街上。我的意思是，你在開玩笑吧？社會保障得到了通過，因為約翰D.

Rockefeller was sick of having to take money out of his profits to pay for his workers’

洛克菲勒厭倦了從他的利潤中拿出錢來支付他的工人們的費用。

pension funds. Why do that, when you can just let the government take money from the workers?

養老基金。為什麼要這樣做，你可以直接讓政府從工人那裡拿錢？

Now, my point is not that Social Security is a bad thing—I think it’s fantastic.

現在，我的觀點並不是說社會保障是一件壞事--我認為它非常棒。

It’s just that the way you get the government to do fantastic things is you find a big company

只是你讓政府做奇妙的事情的方法是你找一個大公司

willing to back them. The problem is, of course, that big companies aren’t really huge fans

願意支持他們。當然，問題是，大公司並不是真正的忠實粉絲

of civil liberties. You know, it’s not that they’re against them; it’s just there’s

的公民自由。你知道，這並不是說他們反對他們， 只是有...

not much money in it.

裡面沒有多少錢。

Now, if you’ve been reading the press, you probably didn’t hear this part of the story.

現在，如果你一直在閱讀媒體，你可能沒有聽到這部分的故事。

As Hollywood has been telling it, the great, good copyright bill they were pushing was

就像好萊塢一直在說的那樣，他們所推行的偉大的好的版權法案是

stopped by the evil Internet companies who make millions of dollars off of copyright

被那些靠版權賺取數百萬美元的邪惡的互聯網公司所阻止。

infringement. But it just—it really wasn’t true. I mean, I was in there, in the meetings

侵權。但它只是... 它真的不是真的。我的意思是，我在那裡，在會議上

with the Internet companies—actually probably all here today. And, you know, if all their

與互聯網公司 - 實際上可能都在這裡今天。而且，你知道，如果所有的

profits depended on copyright infringement, they would have put a lot more money into

他們會把更多的錢投入到

changing copyright law. The fact is, the big Internet companies, they would do just fine

改變版權法。事實上，大的互聯網公司，他們會做得很好。

if this bill passed. I mean, they wouldn’t be thrilled about it, but I doubt they would

如果這個法案通過。我的意思是，他們不會感到興奮， 但我懷疑他們會。

even have a noticeable dip in their stock price. So they were against it, but they were

甚至他們的股價出現了明顯的下滑。所以他們是反對的，但他們是

against it, like the rest of us, on grounds primarily of principle. And principle doesn’t

像我們其他人一樣反對它，主要是基於原則的原因。而原則並不

have a lot of money in the budget to spend on lobbyists. So they were practical about

有很多錢的預算花在遊說者身上。所以他們很實際

it. "Look," they said, "this bill is going to pass. In fact, it’s probably going to

它。"看，"他們說，"這個法案會通過。事實上，它可能會

pass unanimously. As much as we try, this is not a train we’re going to be able to

一致通過。雖然我們很努力，但這不是一列我們能夠做到的火車。

stop. So, we’re not going to support it—we couldn’t support it. But in opposition,

停止。所以，我們不會支持它--我們不能支持它。但在反對。

let’s just try and make it better." So that was the strategy: lobby to make the bill better.

讓我們只是試圖讓它變得更好."所以這就是策略：遊說讓法案變得更好。

They had lists of changes that would make the bill less obnoxious or less expensive

他們列舉了一些可以使法案不那麼令人討厭或不那麼昂貴的改動。

for them, or whatever. But the fact remained at the end of the day, it was going to be

對他們來說，或什麼。但事實仍然是，在一天結束時，它將是

a bill that was going to censor the Internet, and there was nothing we could do to stop

一個法案，將審查互聯網， 我們沒有什麼可以做的，以阻止

it.

它。

So I did what you always do when you’re a little guy facing a terrible future with

所以，我做了你經常做的事情，當你是一個小傢伙 面對一個可怕的未來，與

long odds and little hope of success: I started an online petition. I called all my friends,

長的機率，成功的希望不大。我開始了網上請願。我打電話給我所有的朋友。

and we stayed up all night setting up a website for this new group, Demand Progress, with

我們熬夜建立了一個網站 為這個新的團體，需求進步，與

an online petition opposing this noxious bill, and I sent it to a few friends. Now, I’ve

網上請願書，反對這個有害的法案，我把它發給了幾個朋友。現在，我已經

done a few online petitions before. I’ve worked at some of the biggest groups in the

以前做過幾次網上上訪。我在一些最大的集團工作過。

world that do online petitions. I’ve written a ton of them and read even more. But I’ve

的世界，做網上請願。我寫了一大堆，看了更多。但我已經

never seen anything like this. Starting from literally nothing, we went to 10,000 signers,

從來沒有見過這樣的事情。從什麼都沒有開始， 我們去到10,000個簽名者。

then 100,000 signers, and then 200,000 signers and 300,000 signers, in just a couple of weeks.

然後是10萬個簽名者，然後是20萬個簽名者和30萬個簽名者，在短短几周內。

And it wasn’t just signing a name. We asked those people to call Congress, to call urgently.

而且這不僅僅是籤個名而已。我們要求這些人給國會打電話，緊急打電話。

There was a vote coming up this week, in just a couple days, and we had to stop it. And

本週將有一次投票，就在幾天後，我們必須阻止它。我們必須阻止它。

at the same time, we told the press about it, about this incredible online petition

同時，我們告訴媒體關於它， 關於這個令人難以置信的網上請願，

that was taking off. And we met with the staff of members of Congress and pleaded with them

正在起飛。我們會見了國會議員的工作人員，並懇請他們。

to withdraw their support for the bill. I mean, it was amazing. It was huge. The power

撤回他們的支持 對於該法案。我的意思是，這是驚人的。這是巨大的。權力

of the Internet rose up in force against this bill. And then it passed unanimously.

的互聯網起來反對這個法案。然後一致通過。

Now, to be fair, several of the members gave nice speeches before casting their vote, and

現在，為了公平起見，幾位成員在投票前都作了很好的發言，而且。

in their speeches they said their office had been overwhelmed with comments about the First

他們在發言中說，他們的辦公室已被有關第一委員會的評論所淹沒。

Amendment concerns behind this bill, comments that had them very worried, so worried, in

這個法案背後的修正案的擔憂，這些意見讓他們非常擔心，非常擔心，在。

fact, they weren’t sure that they still supported the bill. But even though they didn’t

事實上，他們並不確定自己是否還支持該法案。但即使他們不

support it, they were going to vote for it anyway, they said, because they needed to

他們說，他們無論如何都會投贊成票的，因為他們需要。

keep the process moving, and they were sure any problems that were had with it could be

進程，他們確信任何問題都可以得到解決。

fixed later. So, I’m going to ask you, does this sound like Washington, D.C., to you?

稍後修復。所以，我想問你，這聽起來像華盛頓特區嗎？

Since when do members of Congress vote for things that they oppose just to keep the process

從什麼時候開始，國會議員投票支持他們反對的東西，只是為了保持這個過程。

moving? I mean, whoever was behind this was good.

搬家？我的意思是，不管是誰在背後都是好的。

And then, suddenly, the process stopped. Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon, put a

然後，突然間，這個過程停止了。來自俄勒岡州的民主黨參議員羅恩-懷登，把一個。

hold on the bill. Giving a speech in which he called it a nuclear bunker-buster bomb

擱置該法案。在演講中，他稱這是一顆核掩體炸彈。

aimed at the Internet, he announced he would not allow it to pass without changes. And

針對互聯網，他宣佈不會允許它在沒有改變的情況下通過。而且

as you may know, a single senator can’t actually stop a bill by themselves, but they

你可能知道，一個參議員實際上不能阻止一個法案，但他們是

can delay it. By objecting to a bill, they can demand Congress spend a bunch of time

可以拖延它。通過反對一項法案，他們可以要求國會花一堆時間

debating it before getting it passed. And Senator Wyden did. He bought us time—a lot

辯論後才獲得通過。而Wyden參議員做到了。他為我們爭取了時間

of time, as it turned out. His delay held all the way through the end of that session

事實證明，他的拖延一直持續到該屆會議結束。他的拖延一直持續到該屆會議結束。

of Congress, so that when the bill came back, it had to start all over again. And since

國會的，所以當法案回來時，它不得不重新開始。而由於

they were starting all over again, they figured, why not give it a new name? And that’s when

他們重新開始，他們想，為什麼不給它一個新的名字？就在這時

it began being called PIPA, and eventually SOPA.

它開始被稱為PIPA，並最終SOPA。

So there was probably a year or two of delay there. And in retrospect, we used that time

所以大概有一兩年的時間耽誤在那裡。現在回想起來，我們利用這段時間。

to lay the groundwork for what came later. But that’s not what it felt like at the

為後來的事情打下基礎。但是，這不是它的感覺是什麼在

time. At the time, it felt like we were going around telling people that these bills were

時候。當時，感覺我們到處去告訴人們，這些法案是

awful, and in return, they told us that they thought we were crazy. I mean, we were kids

可怕的，而作為回報，他們告訴我們 他們認為我們是瘋了。我的意思是，我們是孩子

wandering around waving our arms about how the government was going to censor the Internet.

晃來晃去揮舞著我們的手臂 關於政府如何去審查互聯網。

It does sound a little crazy. You can ask Larry tomorrow. I was constantly telling him

這聽起來確實有點瘋狂。你可以明天問拉里。我一直在告訴他

what was going on, trying to get him involved, and I’m pretty sure he just thought I was