B1 中級 4555 分類 收藏
開始影片後,點擊或框選字幕可以立即查詢單字
字庫載入中…
回報字幕錯誤
AARON SWARTZ: So, for me, it all started with a phone call. It was September—not last
year, but the year before that, September 2010. And I got a phone call from my friend
Peter. "Aaron," he said, "there’s an amazing bill that you have to take a look at." "What
is it?" I said. "It’s called COICA, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeiting
Act." "But, Peter," I said, "I don’t care about copyright law. Maybe you’re right.
Maybe Hollywood is right. But either way, what’s the big deal? I’m not going to
waste my life fighting over a little issue like copyright. Healthcare, financial reform—those
are the issues that I work on, not something obscure like copyright law." I could hear
Peter grumbling in the background. "Look, I don’t have time to argue with you," he
said, "but it doesn’t matter for right now, because this isn’t a bill about copyright."
"It’s not?" "No," he said. "It’s a bill about the freedom to connect." Now I was listening.
Peter explained what you’ve all probably long since learned, that this bill would let
the government devise a list of websites that Americans weren’t allowed to visit. On the
next day, I came up with lots of ways to try to explain this to people. I said it was a
great firewall of America. I said it was an Internet black list. I said it was online
censorship. But I think it’s worth taking a step back, putting aside all the rhetoric
and just thinking for a moment about how radical this bill really was. Sure, there are lots
of times when the government makes rules about speech. If you slander a private figure, if
you buy a television ad that lies to people, if you have a wild party that plays booming
music all night, in all these cases, the government can come stop you. But this was something
radically different. It wasn’t the government went to people and asked them to take down
particular material that was illegal; it shut down whole websites. Essentially, it stopped
Americans from communicating entirely with certain groups. There’s nothing really like
it in U.S. law. If you play loud music all night, the government doesn’t slap you with
an order requiring you be mute for the next couple weeks. They don’t say nobody can
make any more noise inside your house. There’s a specific complaint, which they ask you to
specifically remedy, and then your life goes on.
The closest example I could find was a case where the government was at war with an adult
bookstore. The place kept selling pornography; the government kept getting the porn declared
illegal. And then, frustrated, they decided to shut the whole bookstore down. But even
that was eventually declared unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.
So, you might say, surely COICA would get declared unconstitutional, as well. But I
knew that the Supreme Court had a blind spot around the First Amendment, more than anything
else, more than slander or libel, more than pornography, more even than child pornography.
Their blind spot was copyright. When it came to copyright, it was like the part of the
justices’ brains shut off, and they just totally forgot about the First Amendment.
You got the sense that, deep down, they didn’t even think the First Amendment applied when
copyright was at issue, which means that if you did want to censor the Internet, if you
wanted to come up with some way that the government could shut down access to particular websites,
this bill might be the only way to do it. If it was about pornography, it probably would
get overturned by courts, just like the adult bookstore case. But if you claimed it was
about copyright, it might just sneak through.
And that was especially terrifying, because, as you know, because copyright is everywhere.
If you want to shut down WikiLeaks, it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that you’re
doing it because they have too much pornography, but it’s not hard at all to claim that WikiLeaks
is violating copyright, because everything is copyrighted. This speech, you know, the
thing I’m giving right now, these words are copyrighted. And it’s so easy to accidentally
copy something, so easy, in fact, that the leading Republican supporter of COICA, Orrin
Hatch, had illegally copied a bunch of code into his own Senate website. So if even Orrin
Hatch’s Senate website was found to be violating copyright law, what’s the chance that they
wouldn’t find something they could pin on any of us?
There’s a battle going on right now, a battle to define everything that happens on the Internet
in terms of traditional things that the law understands. Is sharing a video on BitTorrent
like shoplifting from a movie store? Or is it like loaning a videotape to a friend? Is
reloading a webpage over and over again like a peaceful virtual sit-in or a violent smashing
of shop windows? Is the freedom to connect like freedom of speech or like the freedom
to murder?
This bill would be a huge, potentially permanent, loss. If we lost the ability to communicate
with each other over the Internet, it would be a change to the Bill of Rights. The freedoms
guaranteed in our Constitution, the freedoms our country had been built on, would be suddenly
deleted. New technology, instead of bringing us greater freedom, would have snuffed out
fundamental rights we had always taken for granted. And I realized that day, talking
to Peter, that I couldn’t let that happen.
But it was going to happen. The bill, COICA, was introduced on September 20th, 2010, a
Monday, and in the press release heralding the introduction of this bill, way at the
bottom, it was scheduled for a vote on September 23rd, just three days later. And while, of
course, there had to be a vote—you can’t pass a bill without a vote—the results of
that vote were already a foregone conclusion, because if you looked at the introduction
of the law, it wasn’t just introduced by one rogue eccentric member of Congress; it
was introduced by the chair of the Judiciary Committee and co-sponsored by nearly all the
other members, Republicans and Democrats. So, yes, there’d be a vote, but it wouldn’t
be much of a surprise, because nearly everyone who was voting had signed their name to the
bill before it was even introduced.
Now, I can’t stress how unusual this is. This is emphatically not how Congress works.
I’m not talking about how Congress should work, the way you see on Schoolhouse Rock.
I mean, this is not the way Congress actually works. I mean, I think we all know Congress
is a dead zone of deadlock and dysfunction. There are months of debates and horse trading
and hearings and stall tactics. I mean, you know, first you’re supposed to announce
that you’re going to hold hearings on a problem, and then days of experts talking
about the issue, and then you propose a possible solution, you bring the experts back for their
thoughts on that, and then other members have different solutions, and they propose those,
and you spend of bunch of time debating, and there’s a bunch of trading, they get members
over to your cause. And finally, you spend hours talking one on one with the different
people in the debate, try and come back with some sort of compromise, which you hash out
in endless backroom meetings. And then, when that’s all done, you take that, and you
go through it line by line in public to see if anyone has any objections or wants to make
any changes. And then you have the vote. It’s a painful, arduous process. You don’t just
introduce a bill on Monday and then pass it unanimously a couple days later. That just
doesn’t happen in Congress.
But this time, it was going to happen. And it wasn’t because there were no disagreements
on the issue. There are always disagreements. Some senators thought the bill was much too
weak and needed to be stronger: As it was introduced, the bill only allowed the government
to shut down websites, and these senators, they wanted any company in the world to have
the power to get a website shut down. Other senators thought it was a drop too strong.
But somehow, in the kind of thing you never see in Washington, they had all managed to
put their personal differences aside to come together and support one bill they were persuaded
they could all live with: a bill that would censor the Internet. And when I saw this,
I realized: Whoever was behind this was good.
Now, the typical way you make good things happen in Washington is you find a bunch of
wealthy companies who agree with you. Social Security didn’t get passed because some
brave politicians decided their good conscience couldn’t possibly let old people die starving
in the streets. I mean, are you kidding me? Social Security got passed because John D.
Rockefeller was sick of having to take money out of his profits to pay for his workers’
pension funds. Why do that, when you can just let the government take money from the workers?
Now, my point is not that Social Security is a bad thing—I think it’s fantastic.
It’s just that the way you get the government to do fantastic things is you find a big company
willing to back them. The problem is, of course, that big companies aren’t really huge fans
of civil liberties. You know, it’s not that they’re against them; it’s just there’s
not much money in it.
Now, if you’ve been reading the press, you probably didn’t hear this part of the story.
As Hollywood has been telling it, the great, good copyright bill they were pushing was
stopped by the evil Internet companies who make millions of dollars off of copyright
infringement. But it just—it really wasn’t true. I mean, I was in there, in the meetings
with the Internet companies—actually probably all here today. And, you know, if all their
profits depended on copyright infringement, they would have put a lot more money into
changing copyright law. The fact is, the big Internet companies, they would do just fine
if this bill passed. I mean, they wouldn’t be thrilled about it, but I doubt they would
even have a noticeable dip in their stock price. So they were against it, but they were
against it, like the rest of us, on grounds primarily of principle. And principle doesn’t
have a lot of money in the budget to spend on lobbyists. So they were practical about
it. "Look," they said, "this bill is going to pass. In fact, it’s probably going to
pass unanimously. As much as we try, this is not a train we’re going to be able to
stop. So, we’re not going to support it—we couldn’t support it. But in opposition,
let’s just try and make it better." So that was the strategy: lobby to make the bill better.
They had lists of changes that would make the bill less obnoxious or less expensive
for them, or whatever. But the fact remained at the end of the day, it was going to be
a bill that was going to censor the Internet, and there was nothing we could do to stop
it.
So I did what you always do when you’re a little guy facing a terrible future with
long odds and little hope of success: I started an online petition. I called all my friends,
and we stayed up all night setting up a website for this new group, Demand Progress, with
an online petition opposing this noxious bill, and I sent it to a few friends. Now, I’ve
done a few online petitions before. I’ve worked at some of the biggest groups in the
world that do online petitions. I’ve written a ton of them and read even more. But I’ve
never seen anything like this. Starting from literally nothing, we went to 10,000 signers,
then 100,000 signers, and then 200,000 signers and 300,000 signers, in just a couple of weeks.
And it wasn’t just signing a name. We asked those people to call Congress, to call urgently.
There was a vote coming up this week, in just a couple days, and we had to stop it. And
at the same time, we told the press about it, about this incredible online petition
that was taking off. And we met with the staff of members of Congress and pleaded with them
to withdraw their support for the bill. I mean, it was amazing. It was huge. The power
of the Internet rose up in force against this bill. And then it passed unanimously.
Now, to be fair, several of the members gave nice speeches before casting their vote, and
in their speeches they said their office had been overwhelmed with comments about the First
Amendment concerns behind this bill, comments that had them very worried, so worried, in
fact, they weren’t sure that they still supported the bill. But even though they didn’t
support it, they were going to vote for it anyway, they said, because they needed to
keep the process moving, and they were sure any problems that were had with it could be
fixed later. So, I’m going to ask you, does this sound like Washington, D.C., to you?
Since when do members of Congress vote for things that they oppose just to keep the process
moving? I mean, whoever was behind this was good.
And then, suddenly, the process stopped. Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon, put a
hold on the bill. Giving a speech in which he called it a nuclear bunker-buster bomb
aimed at the Internet, he announced he would not allow it to pass without changes. And
as you may know, a single senator can’t actually stop a bill by themselves, but they
can delay it. By objecting to a bill, they can demand Congress spend a bunch of time
debating it before getting it passed. And Senator Wyden did. He bought us time—a lot
of time, as it turned out. His delay held all the way through the end of that session
of Congress, so that when the bill came back, it had to start all over again. And since
they were starting all over again, they figured, why not give it a new name? And that’s when
it began being called PIPA, and eventually SOPA.
So there was probably a year or two of delay there. And in retrospect, we used that time
to lay the groundwork for what came later. But that’s not what it felt like at the
time. At the time, it felt like we were going around telling people that these bills were
awful, and in return, they told us that they thought we were crazy. I mean, we were kids
wandering around waving our arms about how the government was going to censor the Internet.
It does sound a little crazy. You can ask Larry tomorrow. I was constantly telling him
what was going on, trying to get him involved, and I’m pretty sure he just thought I was
exaggerating. Even I began to doubt myself. It was a rough period. But when the bill came
back and started moving again, suddenly all the work we had done started coming together.
All the folks we talked to about it suddenly began getting really involved and getting
others involved. Everything started snowballing. It happened so fast.
I remember there was one week where I was having dinner with a friend in the technology
industry, and he asked what I worked on, and I told him about this bill. And he said, "Wow!
You need to tell people about that." And I just groaned. And then, just a few weeks later,
I remember I was chatting with this cute girl on the subway, and she wasn’t in technology
at all, but when she heard that I was, she turned to me very seriously and said, "You
know, we have to stop 'SOAP.'" So, progress, right?
But, you know, I think that story illustrates what happened during those couple weeks, because
the reason we won wasn’t because I was working on it or Reddit was working on it or Google
was working on it or Tumblr or any other particular person. It was because there was this enormous
mental shift in our industry. Everyone was thinking of ways they could help, often really
clever, ingenious ways. People made videos. They made infographics. They started PACs.
They designed ads. They bought billboards. They wrote news stories. They held meetings.
Everybody saw it as their responsibility to help. I remember at one point during this
period I held a meeting with a bunch of startups in New York, trying to encourage everyone
to get involved, and I felt a bit like I was hosting one of these Clinton Global Initiative
meetings, where I got to turn to every startup in the—every startup founder in the room
and be like, "What are you going to do? And what are you going to do?" And everyone was
trying to one-up each other.
If there was one day the shift crystallized, I think it was the day of the hearings on
SOPA in the House, the day we got that phrase, "It’s no longer OK not to understand how
the Internet works." There was just something about watching those clueless members of Congress
debate the bill, watching them insist they could regulate the Internet and a bunch of
nerds couldn’t possibly stop them. They really brought it home for people that this
was happening, that Congress was going to break the Internet, and it just didn’t care.
I remember when this moment first hit me. I was at an event, and I was talking, and
I got introduced to a U.S. senator, one of the strongest proponents of the original COICA
bill, in fact. And I asked him why, despite being such a progressive, despite giving a
speech in favor of civil liberties, why he was supporting a bill that would censor the
Internet. And, you know, that typical politician smile he had suddenly faded from his face,
and his eyes started burning this fiery red. And he started shouting at me, said, "Those
people on the Internet, they think they can get away with anything! They think they can
just put anything up there, and there’s nothing we can do to stop them! They put up
everything! They put up our nuclear missiles, and they just laugh at us! Well, we’re going
to show them! There’s got to be laws on the Internet! It’s got to be under control!"
Now, as far as I know, nobody has ever put up the U.S.'s nuclear missiles on the Internet.
I mean, it's not something I’ve heard about. But that’s sort of the point. He wasn’t
having a rational concern, right? It was this irrational fear that things were out of control.
Here was this man, a United States senator, and those people on the Internet, they were
just mocking him. They had to be brought under control. Things had to be under control. And
I think that was the attitude of Congress. And just as seeing that fire in that senator’s
eyes scared me, I think those hearings scared a lot of people. They saw this wasn’t the
attitude of a thoughtful government trying to resolve trade-offs in order to best represent
its citizens. This was more like the attitude of a tyrant. And so the citizens fought back.
The wheels came off the bus pretty quickly after that hearing. First the Republican senators
pulled out, and then the White House issued a statement opposing the bill, and then the
Democrats, left all alone out there, announced they were putting the bill on hold so they
could have a few further discussions before the official vote. And that was when, as hard
as it was for me to believe, after all this, we had won. The thing that everyone said was
impossible, that some of the biggest companies in the world had written off as kind of a
pipe dream, had happened. We did it. We won.
And then we started rubbing it in. You all know what happened next. Wikipedia went black.
Reddit went black. Craigslist went black. The phone lines on Capitol Hill flat-out melted.
Members of Congress started rushing to issue statements retracting their support for the
bill that they were promoting just a couple days ago. And it was just ridiculous. I mean,
there’s a chart from the time that captures it pretty well. It says something like "January
14th" on one side and has this big, long list of names supporting the bill, and then just
a few lonely people opposing it; and on the other side, it says "January 15th," and now
it’s totally reversed—everyone is opposing it, just a few lonely names still hanging
on in support.
I mean, this really was unprecedented. Don’t take my word for it, but ask former Senator
Chris Dodd, now the chief lobbyist for Hollywood. He admitted, after he lost, that he had masterminded
the whole evil plan. And he told The New York Times he had never seen anything like it during
his many years in Congress. And everyone I’ve spoken to agrees. The people rose up, and
they caused a sea change in Washington—not the press, which refused to cover the story—just
coincidentally, their parent companies all happened to be lobbying for the bill; not
the politicians, who were pretty much unanimously in favor of it; and not the companies, who
had all but given up trying to stop it and decided it was inevitable. It was really stopped
by the people, the people themselves. They killed the bill dead, so dead that when members
of Congress propose something now that even touches the Internet, they have to give a
long speech beforehand about how it is definitely not like SOPA; so dead that when you ask congressional
staffers about it, they groan and shake their heads like it’s all a bad dream they’re
trying really hard to forget; so dead that it’s kind of hard to believe this story,
hard to remember how close it all came to actually passing, hard to remember how this
could have gone any other way. But it wasn’t a dream or a nightmare; it was all very real.
And it will happen again. Sure, it will have yet another name, and maybe a different excuse,
and probably do its damage in a different way. But make no mistake: The enemies of the
freedom to connect have not disappeared. The fire in those politicians’ eyes hasn’t
been put out. There are a lot of people, a lot of powerful people, who want to clamp
down on the Internet. And to be honest, there aren’t a whole lot who have a vested interest
in protecting it from all of that. Even some of the biggest companies, some of the biggest
Internet companies, to put it frankly, would benefit from a world in which their little
competitors could get censored. We can’t let that happen.
Now, I’ve told this as a personal story, partly because I think big stories like this
one are just more interesting at human scale. The director J.D. Walsh says good stories
should be like the poster for Transformers. There’s a huge evil robot on the left side
of the poster and a huge, big army on the right side of the poster. And in the middle,
at the bottom, there’s just a small family trapped in the middle. Big stories need human
stakes. But mostly, it’s a personal story, because I didn’t have time to research any
of the other part of it. But that’s kind of the point. We won this fight because everyone
made themselves the hero of their own story. Everyone took it as their job to save this
crucial freedom. They threw themselves into it. They did whatever they could think of
to do. They didn’t stop to ask anyone for permission. You remember how Hacker News readers
spontaneously organized this boycott of GoDaddy over their support of SOPA? Nobody told them
they could do that. A few people even thought it was a bad idea. It didn’t matter. The
senators were right: The Internet really is out of control. But if we forget that, if
we let Hollywood rewrite the story so it was just big company Google who stopped the bill,
if we let them persuade us we didn’t actually make a difference, if we start seeing it as
someone else’s responsibility to do this work and it’s our job just to go home and
pop some popcorn and curl up on the couch to watch Transformers, well, then next time
they might just win. Let’s not let that happen.
提示:點選文章或是影片下面的字幕單字,可以直接快速翻譯喔!

載入中…

"F2C2012: Aaron Swartz keynote - ""How we stopped SOPA"""

4555 分類 收藏
short1216 發佈於 2013 年 1 月 17 日
看更多推薦影片
  1. 1. 單字查詢

    在字幕上選取單字即可即時查詢單字喔!

  2. 2. 單句重複播放

    可重複聽取一句單句,加強聽力!

  3. 3. 使用快速鍵

    使用影片快速鍵,讓學習更有效率!

  4. 4. 關閉語言字幕

    進階版練習可關閉字幕純聽英文哦!

  5. 5. 內嵌播放器

    可以將英文字幕學習播放器內嵌到部落格等地方喔

  6. 6. 展開播放器

    可隱藏右方全文及字典欄位,觀看影片更舒適!

  1. 英文聽力測驗

    挑戰字幕英文聽力測驗!

  1. 點擊展開筆記本讓你看的更舒服

  1. UrbanDictionary 俚語字典整合查詢。一般字典查詢不到你滿意的解譯,不妨使用「俚語字典」,或許會讓你有滿意的答案喔