十年前,好萊塢支持的游說者試圖通過國會(huì)推動(dòng)立法,禁止互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上的言論自由和創(chuàng)新。
這些法案被稱為《禁止網(wǎng)絡(luò)盜版法案》(簡稱SOPA)和《保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法案》(簡稱PIPA),它們看起來像是已成定局,直到美國人民的反對(duì)聲浪高漲——數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的簽名、電話和電子郵件——阻止了這些損害民眾權(quán)益的立法。美國人認(rèn)識(shí)到在線言論自由的價(jià)值,并了解互聯(lián)網(wǎng)對(duì)他們的日常生活有多么關(guān)鍵和有益。
在美國人向他們的國會(huì)議員明確表示保護(hù)創(chuàng)造自由是多么重要的十年之后,為什么參議員湯姆·蒂利斯(Thom Tillis)(共和黨-北卡羅來納州)和參議員帕特里克·萊希(Patrick Leahy)(民主黨-佛蒙特州)要為政府強(qiáng)制規(guī)定技術(shù)的運(yùn)作方式提出立法?為什么政策制定者仍在鸚鵡學(xué)舌地談?wù)撽P(guān)于版權(quán)的“大內(nèi)容”要點(diǎn),而這些要點(diǎn)會(huì)破壞這些有價(jià)值的保護(hù)措施嗎?
好萊塢寧可阻礙低收入國家的疫苗公平,也不允許放棄知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)來預(yù)防、控制和治療新冠肺炎,因?yàn)檫@一舉動(dòng)冒著可能“為盜版打開大門”的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。為什么版權(quán)局對(duì)大內(nèi)容公司言聽計(jì)從,卻無視消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)者的擔(dān)憂?版權(quán)局怎么能任命一位來自迪士尼的前律師——一家長期以來為自己的利益而將版權(quán)作為武器的公司來擔(dān)任法律總顧問?
現(xiàn)在是糾正方向的時(shí)候了。美國的消費(fèi)者已經(jīng)向我們表明,他們想要的是有利于所有人的政策,而不僅是對(duì)單一部門有利的政策。在新時(shí)代,政策制定者、學(xué)者、企業(yè)家和行業(yè)必須支持將公眾利益放在首位。
不要再忽視新的創(chuàng)造者經(jīng)濟(jì)
據(jù)估計(jì),新的創(chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)至少價(jià)值1042億美元,超過5000萬創(chuàng)作者正在使用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)將他們的作品直接展示給全球觀眾。藝術(shù)家和制片人在手工藝品銷售網(wǎng)站(Etsy)上銷售他們的工藝品,在Instagram上做廣告。
作家和記者通過在Substack和Medium上分享他們的思想和觀點(diǎn)而賺取收入。音樂家在Spotify和SoundCloud上分享他們的歌曲。許多創(chuàng)作者創(chuàng)辦了小企業(yè),雇傭行政支持、廣告、管理等人員。反過來,這些創(chuàng)作者也支持了更大的經(jīng)濟(jì)體,包括相機(jī)和電影制造商、音響設(shè)備、商品、活動(dòng)策劃等。
新的創(chuàng)造者帶來了巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值,也提供了大量工作崗位,但社會(huì)將這些辛勤工作的人斥為“沒有真正的工作”。
當(dāng)孩子們說他們長大后想成為一名視頻博主時(shí),政策制定者會(huì)嗤之以鼻,然而我們只需看看主流創(chuàng)作者,如艾德·希蘭(Ed Sheeran)、杜阿·利帕(Dua Lipa)、伊薩·雷(Issa Rae)和威肯(The Weeknd),作為藝術(shù)家的代表,他們通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)走紅,并繼續(xù)從網(wǎng)絡(luò)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中獲得收益。
電影、出版和唱片業(yè)的傳統(tǒng)看門人也從創(chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)中受益。音樂行業(yè)報(bào)告了來自音樂流媒體的創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄收入,甚至黑膠唱片和光盤也卷土重來。印刷品和電子書的銷量上升,即使在新冠肺炎疫情期間,好萊塢也制作了比以往更多的電影和電視節(jié)目。
有些人希望政策制定者相信天要塌下來了,但事實(shí)上,創(chuàng)造者經(jīng)濟(jì)正在蓬勃發(fā)展,并支持無數(shù)次的創(chuàng)造力迭代,帶來積極的經(jīng)濟(jì)影響和數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。
一個(gè)創(chuàng)意部門是否因?yàn)閾碛腥嗣}廣泛的游說者和收入更高的政治籌款活動(dòng)而優(yōu)于另一個(gè)?
畢竟,在數(shù)字時(shí)代,每個(gè)消費(fèi)者都是創(chuàng)造者。每一條用戶貢獻(xiàn)的推特、照片、評(píng)論和帖子都是創(chuàng)意作品,因此受版權(quán)法的約束。關(guān)于版權(quán)和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)運(yùn)作方式的政策決定對(duì)所有創(chuàng)作者,尤其是我們其他人,有著廣泛的影響。
記住版權(quán)法的真正目的
版權(quán)法是為了促進(jìn)創(chuàng)造力。憲法規(guī)定,版權(quán)旨在通過賦予創(chuàng)作者“有限時(shí)間”的“專有”權(quán)利來“促進(jìn)科學(xué)和實(shí)用藝術(shù)的進(jìn)步”。
立法者和版權(quán)局不應(yīng)在少數(shù)強(qiáng)大實(shí)體的要求下提議對(duì)版權(quán)法進(jìn)行全面修改,而應(yīng)聽取公共利益組織對(duì)這些想法提出的隱私方面、競(jìng)爭(zhēng)方面和言論自由方面的關(guān)切。
例如,在網(wǎng)上強(qiáng)加過濾技術(shù)的提議將使初創(chuàng)公司處于不利地位,并為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶在網(wǎng)上發(fā)布自由言論帶來威脅。與其建立一個(gè)小額索償法庭,讓普通美國人面臨成千上萬的法定損害賠償,政策制定者應(yīng)該聽取這些美國人的反對(duì)意見。美國政府部門不應(yīng)任命那些只為大內(nèi)容公司工作過的版權(quán)律師,而應(yīng)聘請(qǐng)?jiān)趧?chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)方面有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的專家。
在SOPA和PIPA法案十年之后,我們擁有的不僅僅是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)。我們擁有一個(gè)由平臺(tái)、應(yīng)用程序、電子商務(wù)、流媒體等組成的完整在線生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。得益于網(wǎng)飛(Netflix)、視頻網(wǎng)站Hulu、音樂服務(wù)網(wǎng)站Spotify和Apple Music,消費(fèi)者有更多機(jī)會(huì)獲得內(nèi)容,這也推動(dòng)了數(shù)字盜版的下降。由于互聯(lián)網(wǎng),美國人可以享受和購買新的文藝復(fù)興價(jià)值的內(nèi)容。
當(dāng)政策制定者、學(xué)者和組織辯論和思考如何實(shí)現(xiàn)更好的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)以改善所有人的生活時(shí),我們必須關(guān)注最重要的事情:集體利益。
現(xiàn)有的法律框架,如《數(shù)字千年版權(quán)法案》已經(jīng)生效。它首先通過支持新的創(chuàng)新平臺(tái),同時(shí)仍然保護(hù)創(chuàng)作者的版權(quán)來促進(jìn)創(chuàng)意經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。
僅僅允許公眾利益的聲音出現(xiàn)在房間里是不夠的。政策制定者必須獨(dú)立思考:更強(qiáng)有力、更嚴(yán)格的版權(quán)法是如何保護(hù)一小部分傳統(tǒng)創(chuàng)作者的利益,卻損害所有美國人的權(quán)利、生計(jì)和利益的。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
約書亞·拉梅兒(Joshua Lamel)是Re:Create的執(zhí)行董事。
十年前,好萊塢支持的游說者試圖通過國會(huì)推動(dòng)立法,禁止互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上的言論自由和創(chuàng)新。
這些法案被稱為《禁止網(wǎng)絡(luò)盜版法案》(簡稱SOPA)和《保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法案》(簡稱PIPA),它們看起來像是已成定局,直到美國人民的反對(duì)聲浪高漲——數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的簽名、電話和電子郵件——阻止了這些損害民眾權(quán)益的立法。美國人認(rèn)識(shí)到在線言論自由的價(jià)值,并了解互聯(lián)網(wǎng)對(duì)他們的日常生活有多么關(guān)鍵和有益。
在美國人向他們的國會(huì)議員明確表示保護(hù)創(chuàng)造自由是多么重要的十年之后,為什么參議員湯姆·蒂利斯(Thom Tillis)(共和黨-北卡羅來納州)和參議員帕特里克·萊希(Patrick Leahy)(民主黨-佛蒙特州)要為政府強(qiáng)制規(guī)定技術(shù)的運(yùn)作方式提出立法?為什么政策制定者仍在鸚鵡學(xué)舌地談?wù)撽P(guān)于版權(quán)的“大內(nèi)容”要點(diǎn),而這些要點(diǎn)會(huì)破壞這些有價(jià)值的保護(hù)措施嗎?
好萊塢寧可阻礙低收入國家的疫苗公平,也不允許放棄知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)來預(yù)防、控制和治療新冠肺炎,因?yàn)檫@一舉動(dòng)冒著可能“為盜版打開大門”的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。為什么版權(quán)局對(duì)大內(nèi)容公司言聽計(jì)從,卻無視消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)者的擔(dān)憂?版權(quán)局怎么能任命一位來自迪士尼的前律師——一家長期以來為自己的利益而將版權(quán)作為武器的公司來擔(dān)任法律總顧問?
現(xiàn)在是糾正方向的時(shí)候了。美國的消費(fèi)者已經(jīng)向我們表明,他們想要的是有利于所有人的政策,而不僅是對(duì)單一部門有利的政策。在新時(shí)代,政策制定者、學(xué)者、企業(yè)家和行業(yè)必須支持將公眾利益放在首位。
不要再忽視新的創(chuàng)造者經(jīng)濟(jì)
據(jù)估計(jì),新的創(chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)至少價(jià)值1042億美元,超過5000萬創(chuàng)作者正在使用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)將他們的作品直接展示給全球觀眾。藝術(shù)家和制片人在手工藝品銷售網(wǎng)站(Etsy)上銷售他們的工藝品,在Instagram上做廣告。
作家和記者通過在Substack和Medium上分享他們的思想和觀點(diǎn)而賺取收入。音樂家在Spotify和SoundCloud上分享他們的歌曲。許多創(chuàng)作者創(chuàng)辦了小企業(yè),雇傭行政支持、廣告、管理等人員。反過來,這些創(chuàng)作者也支持了更大的經(jīng)濟(jì)體,包括相機(jī)和電影制造商、音響設(shè)備、商品、活動(dòng)策劃等。
新的創(chuàng)造者帶來了巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值,也提供了大量工作崗位,但社會(huì)將這些辛勤工作的人斥為“沒有真正的工作”。
當(dāng)孩子們說他們長大后想成為一名視頻博主時(shí),政策制定者會(huì)嗤之以鼻,然而我們只需看看主流創(chuàng)作者,如艾德·希蘭(Ed Sheeran)、杜阿·利帕(Dua Lipa)、伊薩·雷(Issa Rae)和威肯(The Weeknd),作為藝術(shù)家的代表,他們通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)走紅,并繼續(xù)從網(wǎng)絡(luò)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中獲得收益。
電影、出版和唱片業(yè)的傳統(tǒng)看門人也從創(chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)中受益。音樂行業(yè)報(bào)告了來自音樂流媒體的創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄收入,甚至黑膠唱片和光盤也卷土重來。印刷品和電子書的銷量上升,即使在新冠肺炎疫情期間,好萊塢也制作了比以往更多的電影和電視節(jié)目。
有些人希望政策制定者相信天要塌下來了,但事實(shí)上,創(chuàng)造者經(jīng)濟(jì)正在蓬勃發(fā)展,并支持無數(shù)次的創(chuàng)造力迭代,帶來積極的經(jīng)濟(jì)影響和數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。
一個(gè)創(chuàng)意部門是否因?yàn)閾碛腥嗣}廣泛的游說者和收入更高的政治籌款活動(dòng)而優(yōu)于另一個(gè)?
畢竟,在數(shù)字時(shí)代,每個(gè)消費(fèi)者都是創(chuàng)造者。每一條用戶貢獻(xiàn)的推特、照片、評(píng)論和帖子都是創(chuàng)意作品,因此受版權(quán)法的約束。關(guān)于版權(quán)和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)運(yùn)作方式的政策決定對(duì)所有創(chuàng)作者,尤其是我們其他人,有著廣泛的影響。
記住版權(quán)法的真正目的
版權(quán)法是為了促進(jìn)創(chuàng)造力。憲法規(guī)定,版權(quán)旨在通過賦予創(chuàng)作者“有限時(shí)間”的“專有”權(quán)利來“促進(jìn)科學(xué)和實(shí)用藝術(shù)的進(jìn)步”。
立法者和版權(quán)局不應(yīng)在少數(shù)強(qiáng)大實(shí)體的要求下提議對(duì)版權(quán)法進(jìn)行全面修改,而應(yīng)聽取公共利益組織對(duì)這些想法提出的隱私方面、競(jìng)爭(zhēng)方面和言論自由方面的關(guān)切。
例如,在網(wǎng)上強(qiáng)加過濾技術(shù)的提議將使初創(chuàng)公司處于不利地位,并為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶在網(wǎng)上發(fā)布自由言論帶來威脅。與其建立一個(gè)小額索償法庭,讓普通美國人面臨成千上萬的法定損害賠償,政策制定者應(yīng)該聽取這些美國人的反對(duì)意見。美國政府部門不應(yīng)任命那些只為大內(nèi)容公司工作過的版權(quán)律師,而應(yīng)聘請(qǐng)?jiān)趧?chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)方面有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的專家。
在SOPA和PIPA法案十年之后,我們擁有的不僅僅是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)。我們擁有一個(gè)由平臺(tái)、應(yīng)用程序、電子商務(wù)、流媒體等組成的完整在線生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。得益于網(wǎng)飛(Netflix)、視頻網(wǎng)站Hulu、音樂服務(wù)網(wǎng)站Spotify和Apple Music,消費(fèi)者有更多機(jī)會(huì)獲得內(nèi)容,這也推動(dòng)了數(shù)字盜版的下降。由于互聯(lián)網(wǎng),美國人可以享受和購買新的文藝復(fù)興價(jià)值的內(nèi)容。
當(dāng)政策制定者、學(xué)者和組織辯論和思考如何實(shí)現(xiàn)更好的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)以改善所有人的生活時(shí),我們必須關(guān)注最重要的事情:集體利益。
現(xiàn)有的法律框架,如《數(shù)字千年版權(quán)法案》已經(jīng)生效。它首先通過支持新的創(chuàng)新平臺(tái),同時(shí)仍然保護(hù)創(chuàng)作者的版權(quán)來促進(jìn)創(chuàng)意經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。
僅僅允許公眾利益的聲音出現(xiàn)在房間里是不夠的。政策制定者必須獨(dú)立思考:更強(qiáng)有力、更嚴(yán)格的版權(quán)法是如何保護(hù)一小部分傳統(tǒng)創(chuàng)作者的利益,卻損害所有美國人的權(quán)利、生計(jì)和利益的。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
約書亞·拉梅兒(Joshua Lamel)是Re:Create的執(zhí)行董事。
Ten years ago Hollywood-backed lobbyists tried to push legislation through Congress that would have shut down free speech and innovation on the internet.
Known as SOPA and PIPA, the bills looked like a done deal until a groundswell of opposition from the American people—millions of signatures, phone calls, and emails—stopped the harmful legislation. Americans recognized the value of free expression online and understood how critical and beneficial the internet was to their everyday lives.
A decade after Americans made it clear to their members of Congress how important it is to protect the freedom to create, why are Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introducing legislation for government-imposed mandates on how technology works? Why are policymakers still parroting “Big Content” talking points on copyright that would undo these valued protections?
Hollywood would rather hold back vaccine equity in low-income nations than allow a narrow waiver of intellectual property rights to prevent, contain, and treat COVID-19 at the risk it could “open the door to increased piracy.” Why is the Copyright Office doing Big Content’s bidding and ignoring concerns from consumer advocates? How can the Copyright Office appoint a former lawyer from Disney—a corporation with a long history of weaponizing copyright for its own benefit—to be general counsel?
It’s time for a course correction. America’s consumers have shown us they want policies that benefit everyone—not just a single sector. Policymakers, academics, entrepreneurs, and industries must support a new era that puts the public interest first.
Stop ignoring the new creator economy
The new creator economy is estimated to be worth at least $104.2 billion, and more than 50 million creators are using the internet to bring their work directly to global audiences. Artists and makers sell their crafts on Etsy and advertise on Instagram.
Writers and journalists earn income for their thoughts and ideas on Substack and Medium. Musicians share their songs on Spotify and SoundCloud. Many creators are small businesses themselves, hiring administrative support, advertising, management, and more. In turn, those creators support an even larger economy of camera and film manufacturers, sound equipment, merchandise, event planning, and beyond.
The new creator economy represents tremendous value and a significant number of jobs in our economy, but society discredits these hardworking individuals as “not having real jobs.”
Policymakers scoff when kids say they want to be a vlogger when they grow up, yet we only have to look to mainstream creators like Ed Sheeran, Dua Lipa, Issa Rae, and The Weeknd as examples of artists who got their start with online success and continue to reap benefits from the online ecosystem.
The traditional gatekeepers of the film, publishing, and recording industry have also benefited from the creator economy. The music industry reported record revenues from music streaming, and even vinyl and CDs are making a comeback. Sales for print and ebooks are up, and even in a pandemic, Hollywood is creating more movies and TV shows than ever before.
Some people want policymakers to believe the sky is falling, but in fact the creator economy is thriving and supporting a myriad iterations of creativity, positive economic impact, and millions of jobs.
Is one creative sector superior to another just because it has well-connected lobbyists and better-paid political fundraising operations?
After all, every consumer is also a creator in the digital age. Every single user-contributed tweet, photo, comment, and post is a creative work—and therefore subject to copyright law. Policy decisions about copyright and how the internet works have widespread impacts on all creators, especially the rest of us.
Remember the true purpose of copyright law
It’s to promote creativity. Enshrined in the Constitution, copyright is intended to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by giving creators an “exclusive” right for “l(fā)imited times.”
Instead of proposing to overhaul copyright law at the behest of a few powerful entities, lawmakers and the Copyright Office should listen to the privacy, competition, and free speech concerns that public interest organizations raise about these ideas.
Proposals to impose filtering technology online, for instance, would put startups at a disadvantage and threaten internet users’ ability to post free speech online. Instead of establishing a small-claims court that will expose ordinary Americans to thousands in statutory damages, policymakers should have heeded those Americans’ objections. Instead of appointing copyright lawyers who have worked only for Big Content, our government offices should also bring in experts with experience in the creator economy.
A decade after SOPA PIPA, we have more than the internet. We have an entire online ecosystem of platforms, apps, e-commerce, streaming, and more. Consumers have greater access to content thanks to Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, and Apple Music, which has also driven a decline in digital piracy. Thanks to the internet, Americans have a new Renaissance’s worth of content to enjoy—and purchase.
As policymakers, academics, and organizations debate and think about how to pursue a better internet for the betterment of all people, we have to focus on what matters most: our collective interest.
Existing legal frameworks like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act already work. It’s what facilitated the creative economy in the first place by supporting new innovative platforms while still protecting creators’ copyrights.
It’s not enough to allow public interest voices in the room. Policymakers must think for themselves about how stronger, more restrictive copyright laws might protect a small group of traditional creators but hurt the rights, livelihoods, and interests of all Americans.
Joshua Lamel is the executive director of Re:Create