Name: F2C2012: Aaron Swartz keynote - "How we stopped SOPA"
Uploaded: 2013-01-17T09:02:59.000Z
Duration: 22 min 52 s

AARON SWARTZ: So, for me, it all started with a phone call. It was September—not last

AARON SWARTZ：所以，對我來說，這一切都始於一個電話。那是九月，不是去年

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

"亞倫，"他說，"有一個驚人的法案，你必須看看.""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."

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

"不是嗎""不，"他說。 "這是一個關於自由連接的法案."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"？

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。

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

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