Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • AARON SWARTZ: So, for me, it all started with a phone call. It was Septembernot last

    AARON SWARTZ: 私にとっては、すべては電話から始まりました。それは9月のことでした。

  • 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

    Peter. "Aaron," he said, "There's an amazing bill that you have to take take at look." " 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 youre right.

    Act." "but, Peter,"I said, "I don't care about copyright law.多分、あなたの言う通りです。

  • 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 reformthose

    著作権のような些細な問題で 私の人生を無駄にしています医療、金融改革、

  • 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

    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."

    と、"but it doesn't matter for right now, because this isn't a bill about copyright.&quot.

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

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

  • Peter explained what youve 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

    一晩中音楽を聴いていると 政府が止めに来ることがありますしかし、これは何か

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

    根本的に違う政府が人々のところに行って 撤去するように頼んだのではなく

  • 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

    アメリカの法律では一晩中大音量の音楽をかけても 政府はあなたを平手打ちしません

  • 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


  • justicesbrains 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

    心の底では修正第一条が適用されるとは 思っていなかったようですね

  • 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,

    政府が特定のウェブサイトへのアクセスを 遮断する方法を考え出そうとしていました

  • 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 youre


  • 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

    は著作権に違反しています すべてが著作権で保護されているからですこのスピーチは

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

    私が今与えているもの これらの言葉は著作権で保護されていますそして、それはとても簡単に誤って

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

    共和党のCOICAの主要な支持者である オーリンがコピーしたものです

  • 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?

    私たちの誰にでも 突き止められるようなものを 見つけることができないのでは?

  • 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

    インターネットを介してお互いに話し合えば 権利章典の変更になるでしょう自由の

  • 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

    下の方では ちょうど3日後の9月23日に採決が予定されていましたそして、その一方で

  • course, there had to be a voteyou can’t pass a bill without a votethe 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.

    これがどれほど異常なことか 強調できませんこれは議会のやり方ではない

  • 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 youre supposed to announce


  • that youre 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.

    路上で私をからかっているのか?社会保障制度が通ったのは ジョン・D・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C・C

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

    ロックフェラーは労働者の賃金を支払うために 利益から金を巻き上げなければならないことにうんざりしていました。

  • 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 theyre against them; it’s just there’s


  • not much money in it.


  • Now, if youve 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 justit really wasn’t true. I mean, I was in there, in the meetings


  • with the Internet companiesactually probably all here today. And, you know, if all their

    インターネット企業と一緒に- 実際には今日ここにいるのは全員そうでしょうそして、あなたが知っているように、もし彼らの

  • 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

    私たちと同じように 主に原則に基づいて反対していますそして、原則は

  • 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

    それを見て、"Look," they said, " this bill is going to pass.実際には、それはおそらく

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


  • stop. So, were not going to support itwe 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.

    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 youre a little guy facing a terrible future with

    だから私はいつもやっていることをしました あなたがチビの時に 恐ろしい未来に直面している時に

  • 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

    そして、私たちは徹夜でこの新しいグループ、Demand Progressのウェブサイトを立ち上げました。

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

    この有害法案に反対するオンライン請願書を 数人の友人に送りました今、私は

  • 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

    オンライン請願をする世界私は何トンも書いてきました そしてさらに多く読んできましたしかし、私は

  • 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.

    インターネットの人々は この法案に反対して立ち上がりましたそして全会一致で可決されました

  • 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

    遅らせることができます。法案に異議を唱えることで 議会に多くの時間を費やすよう要求することができます

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

    議会を通過させる前に 議論していましたそして、ワイデン議員は、その通りにしました彼は私達に時間を稼いでくれました

  • 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

    彼を巻き込もうとしていたが 彼は私のことを

  • 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!

    そして彼は私が何に取り組んでいたのか尋ねてきました そして私はこの法案について話しましたそして、彼は言いました、"Wow!

  • You need to tell people about that." And I just groaned. And then, just a few weeks later,

    You need to tell people about that." And I just groaned.そして、ちょうど数週間後に

  • 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?

    を止めなければならないことを知っています 'SOAP.'" だから、進歩ですよね?

  • 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

    が作業していたのか Tumblr や特定の人が作業していたのか。それは、この巨大な

  • 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 theevery startup founder in the room


  • and be like, "What are you going to do? And what are you going to do?" And everyone was

    とのようになる、"What are you going to do?And what are you are 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

    ハウス内のSOPA, 我々はそのフレーズを得た日, "それはどのように理解していないのはもはやOKです

  • the Internet works." There was just something about watching those clueless members of Congress

    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