Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
from the that-would-send-a-statement dept
As more and more internet operations recognize the horrors of SOPA, they're stepping up to do stuff about it. The latest is that Wikipedia is considering a blackout on the site in protest -- a move that might actually catch Congress' attention because people in Congress actually use Wikipedia all the time. There's a discussion on the site concerning whether or not Wikipedia should make this move, and it's not a bad time to add your thoughts to the discussion. Most of the discussion so far appears to be in favor, but more thoughts can only help. The idea is to model this on the rather powerful message that was sent back in October when Wikipedia blocked access to its Italian version in protest of a new wiretapping law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blackout, censorship, copyright, jimmy wales, pipa, protect ip, sopa, wikpedia
Companies: wikia, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get it...
That begs the question... who are they for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you were to only block out Congress, then they can write it off as no one outside the Wikipedia community and Congress would have know it happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was thinking the same thing, a government only block wouldn't do much, the idea is to get the information out to as many people as possible. If wikipedia does this it shines a huge spotlight on SOPA and PIPA. If Google were to do something similar it would quickly become network news.
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has the potential to be the most powerful move to date in the protests against SOPA and PIPA.
This has to be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woah, woah..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Woah, woah..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Woah, woah..
In other words, blocking the world is useless because their voice will not be heard. On the other hand, blocking their constituents would have the potential to bring about more public backlash and cause them to rethink what they are doing, since they are going to be up for re-election at some point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
consider the mid to late 80's where apartheid is concerned and think back to the public demonstrations in europe and (to a lesser extent) the U.S.
between U.S. higher education schools divesting as a result of protests and the large global number of corporations cutting ties with south africa, its economy started to tank which in part, brought about the end of apartheid.
wikipedia blocking the world brings attention to the subject in the same way as protests and divestiture brought global attention to apartheid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Woah, woah..
By all means get ahead of the game. It may be necessary as it appears more and more that the game is rigged and the outcome bought and paid for from the lowliest page in Congress to the White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Woah, woah..
nor does congress know what a proxy is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Woah, woah..
SOPA and PROTECT IP will certainly harm U.S. citizens and businesses, but it will harm the rest of the world even more. They are the ones who have to worry the most about their websites being taken down, globally, because of one U.S. law.
So, while I understand the sentiment, taking down Wikipedia worldwide is absolutely the best thing to do, if your aim is to raise consciousness about the bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Woah, woah..
I'm sure that will go over great in DC, and will undoubtedly win you some new influence and friends.
Definitely a real plus for the tech community...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
SOPA has the potential of doing a lot of irreparable damage to the internet as we know it today. Because ANY site that allows user generated content could be taken down under this.
That means youtube, blogger, reddit, digg, vimeo, justin.tv, ustream, liveleak, wikipedia, wikihow, etc, are all under attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Why must you LIE about sites being taken down that could never be taken down?
We'll assume it's because just like Mike Masnick, you really love to rip off musicians, don't you?
Did your parents raise you as a donkey, like Masnick's did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Am I lying? Can you prove to me that I'm lying?
BTW, to respond to your attack, no I do not rip off musicians. I have supported many acts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Do you also believe that the DMCA was never abused?
And what about sites that come next? Do you think that innovation stops with the sites I mentioned? Right now, in someone's garage, someone is working on the next Google, but will it have an existence? Because this law will lay down a minefield for web development. Walking on eggshells is not helpful when you want to innovate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Woah, woah..
You know what a more effective blackout option would be? Google. If Google did a blackout to raise SOPA awareness, could you imagine or Facebook? Imagine all 3 blacking out at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DO IT, DO IT NOW!!!!
Screw the discussions, this is a perfect idea! My friends like Wikipedia, but they ignore all the SOPA stuff I post on Facebook. One of my friend thinks it's made up just because it's not on TV news and this is the Internet. I try to explain why it's not on TV news, but no one listens!
Not just Wikipedia, EVERY site on the net, should do it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competitors Will Welcome The Move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competitors Will Welcome The Move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competitors Will Welcome The Move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What affect did it have on the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can't stand people actually calling your bullshit, huh?
Anyway, if you want to make us go dark, details are here:
http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=100000000
I'll await your check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hmmmmm, you don't accept BitCoin by any chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Way to talk the talk Masnick. Don't let your principles get in the way of the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Way to talk the talk Masnick. Don't let your principles get in the way of the money.
Hey, sparky, it's called a joke. We're not shutting down. Anyone with a functioning brain would know that.
I guess you can't buy a sense of humor. Or perhaps you sold it along with your soul when you went to work undermining the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You need to come up with new excuses. These have all gotten stale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Explain to me how that's fair or just or right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You probably shouldn't speak anymore. I'm not censoring you or trying to censor you. I'm just trying to spare you the embarrassment of being made to look like a moron. You're own "arguments" (and I'm being overly generous in calling anything you say that) can be quickly and easily refuted, disproved and turned around on you.
Basically, you're not as intelligent or as clever as you think you are. You're outclassed and should just stick to the ad homs. It's basically the only thing you're good at. (Not really though, again, I'm being nice. You're ad homs are what I'd have said when I was like 4 years old.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The length of copyright has nothing to do with whether or not it's legal to infringe.
The length of copyright has no bearing on the majority of infringement that occurs.
You want copyright length shortened? Sure, I'll vote for that.
Now let's see you do something about the infringement of copyrights on material that is contemporary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The current length of copyright has very much to do with why a huge swath of artwork is technically infringed upon nowadays.
As for the current 'contemporary' infringement, the best course of action is education. If that doesn't work and society still infringes then the law(s) are unworkable, untenable, and diminish themselves and the whole basic tenant and structure of the reason for the law has to be re-thought.
As any lawyer worth their salt will tell you that the law itself is a living entity with, like most things, the only constant being one of change. Laws and moral codes need to change with society, if they don't the society is heading towards civil war at the best, total destruction at the worst.
Copyright which is basically a statutory restriction on the actual natural right to copy is just one of many many laws that will need to change, and change dramatically, in the coming decades with new advances in digital, biological and material sciences.
If some Industry entity who has only on average 0.4% of the worlds GDP doesn't want to change and instead wants to restrict and/or destroy the other 99.6% then that entity needs to seriously change or some bigger and uglier entities will eventually make it go the way of the dodo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it doesn't.
That's a cheap excuse.
It has to do with human nature, i.e., greed:
"I want something. If I can get away with getting it without paying, I will."
Your willful ignorance to this is stale and ineffective.
When will you realize that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that would be a cheap excuse, but basically what copyright maximilists say all the time.
Basically it comes down to you saying "Oh no you cannot be correct because it has to do with basic human emotions and psychology"
My counter to that is EVERYTHING we humans do is done for some reason be it Money, Ideology, Conscience or Ego (MICE)
And in good conscience no one can ethically state that Copyright as it currently stands is too short and in fact is egregiously long so that ethically and to be correct to what the true reason behind copyright is for, those that do infringe do it to STOP the greed of others.
"I want something that I should be able to get for zero cost nowadays to do with as I will, but someone wants to profiteer off of the ability I as a societal member gave them in good faith in their absolute greed so therefore I feel ok with doing what I feel is correct and fair"
Two can play this game...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you arguing about this bill?
Are you a freeloading, parasitical freetard with an axe to grind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your logic, all the complaints about Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, etc. being socialist/communist uncultured bastions of rampant piracy are unfounded. You don't live in those countries. Why are you arguing about their copyright systems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Sorta like how you're undermining the rights the founding fathers gave to the Constitution with your hatred of copyright?"
That is your original statement. Notice how everything I said refutes it? Yep, that's me sticking to the issue. You started it, you got proved wrong. Now deal with it.
Also, YOU yourself DID NOT mention anything per your original comment (see above) about whether or not it's legal to infringe, anything about the length of copyright and it's bearing on infringement, or anything else for that matter. Thus I had no reason to mention any of that. In fact, I didn't at all. I said nothing about infringement, or about the legality or illegality of it. I merely pointed out the facts in regards to your statement (I'm repeating myself repeatedly in the hopes that you'll actually read what I say and see how it goes in regards to what you said).
Let's see YOU stick to the topic. You said one thing. I replied in turn to what you said. Your response to what I actually said? Or do you have none and can you just admit that your original comment was in fact factually inaccurate? Or an outright lie? Seeing as how you were already wagging a finger at others about lying, it's only fair that you own up to your own untrue statement. Wouldn't want to be considered a hypocrite now would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The topic of the article is a copyright infringement bill, dumbass.
Not the argument YOU want to have about copyright length.
Let's see YOU stick to the topic.
Which is about infringement.
Which copyright length is not an excuse to engage in.
No matter how you try to fucking rationalize it, you will be wrong, EVERY fucking time.
You want an argument about copyright length?
See if you can get Masnick to write one- that is when he's not bitching about piracy enforcement.
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want to talk about facts? Ok, let's talk about facts.
SOPA isn't a copyright infringement bill. It's a bill designed to give the former gatekeepers their own role back. They get to decide what a rogue site is, without a lot of judicial oversight.
It's not about abolishing copyright, never has been, it's only a minor victory if the bill actually achieves that. But the overall language of the bill is not about copyright infringement.
The middlemen of the RIAA-backed labels and the MPAA-backed movie studios want to keep their jobs (nothing wrong with wanting to keep your jobs), at the expense of the free internet (which is wrong). Instead of fighting the free internet (free as in speech), they should embrace it and see it as the vehicle for promotion that it is.
The internet is not here for unbridled 'piracy' (which is the myth that the RIAA and the MPAA like to promote), it's a communication platform first and foremost. But the bill threatens this communication platform.
Thousands of people speak against that threat, and all you can do is lie and spin the message.
BTW, Mike has already written about the length of copyright, and how studies upon studies have shown that a 15 years maximum is more than enough for copyrighted material. The current copyright law as it stands now is known to the rest of the world as the Mickey Mouse law for a reason. It's prime purpose is to lock up Disney's (et al) content.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0123105835.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articl es/20070427/022155.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061126/234750.shtml
http://www.techdir t.com/articles/20091221/1756577455.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, by "topic at hand", I meant what was being said. By you. That copyright was a right passed on by the Founding Fathers through the Constitution. YOUR ORIGINAL STATEMENT.
This was definitively proven wrong by both Karl and myself.
You said something, got called out on it. Now you're upset.
I am not discussing infringement or copyright length. I am discussing YOUR incorrect and outrageously false statement. You know, the one that was disproved.
Now, calm down. Just admit it, you were wrong. And now you're pissed that someone proved you wrong. You're a hypocrite. You're a liar. You're an idiot who can't even get the facts right. Basically, everything you try and label others you yourself are the worst offender.
As for Mike, he's not bitching about copyright enforcement the way you think he is. He's got no problem with it, as long as it's done PROPERLY and in accordance with the law. In a manner that will have no negative repercussions on innocent non-infringing people or their rights. He's stated this repeatedly. In fact, most people on this site have done the same. None of us have a problem with copyright enforcement, as long as there's no collateral damage.
But because we don't support free speech violations, false DMCA takedowns, censorship, DNS breaking, etc. We must all be pro-piracy. That's a very black and white world you live in. Everyone but you is wrong, more so when they prove you wrong with actual facts and logic. In addition, to all being freeloading thieves and piracy apologist. Lol. You're hilarious. Seriously, keep talking. It's not even 7AM and I'm probably not gonna laugh this hard again at all the rest of the day.
You're great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You probably meant "in," but even that is inaccurate. The Founding Fathers were not "giving" fundamental rights, but recognizing them: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
Also, you will notice that copyright was never granted to artists or publishers. Copyright was granted, exclusively, to Congress.
There is a very simple reason for this: Congress is supposed to be representing the public, not rights holders or private industries. It is the sole ability of the public to decide what copyright laws are, or are not, appropriate.
So, for example, Congress could do away with copyright altogether, and nobody's rights would be trampled upon. Copyright is purely, and solely, a creation of statute; and if those statutes disappear, so does copyright, "without claim or complaint from anybody."
That is because copyright's purpose is solely to benefit the general public. It may also benefit publishers, but it's not the reason copyright exists; it exists solely to benefit the public, and if the public loses more than it gains, then copyright law is wrong, and must be amended or repealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I sleep fine at night. Because I'm not some vacuous instigator whose convictions abruptly end at the point where I have to put some real skin in the game. Face it Masnick, you're a soft, wealthy private school boy who wouldn't dream of jeopardizing what he's got to win this fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WTF? First you say that if we did shut down that would be money grabbing, now you're claiming that if we DON'T shut down we're money grabbing.
At least stay consistent in your idiotic nonsensical diatribes.
When you boil it all down, cash trumps ideology every time.
Oh bullshit. We've never compromised our principles, because what the fuck good would that do us? I post what I believe. I have no corporate masters. If I just wanted to make money, this blog certainly wouldn't be about innovation.
Because I'm not some vacuous instigator whose convictions abruptly end at the point where I have to put some real skin in the game. Face it Masnick, you're a soft, wealthy private school boy who wouldn't dream of jeopardizing what he's got to win this fight.
First, I never was a "wealthy private school boy." I attended public school from kindergarten up until I graduated undergrad -- all public schools. But, really, what does that have to do with anything?
As for the rest, I don't get it. You seem to think this is about politics. It's not about winning a fight. It's about being right. I know I'm right and I know I've been able to influence the debate. That will continue. You can be as uninformed as you like. It's no skin off my back to watch you flail around ignorantly.
I also know that time is on my side, because even if you and your friends pass a bad bill, truth wins out in the end. You can pass a bad bill that will harm the very constituents you think you're supporting, but you're the one who has to live with the consequences of setting up the first American blacklist of internet censorship. You're the one who has to live with the fact that you're harming innovation for artists. You're the one who has to live with the fact that the only ones you helped are a small group of rich fatcats who already pull in tens of millions of dollars a year fleecing artists.
But, in the long run, all that's meaningless. You're fighting a fight that can't be won. So I have no worries. You've already lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it isn't. It's about piracy apologism. Yours, to be exact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shouldn't it actually be 'Infringement Apologist'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't you fucking dare try to speak for artists, you fucking sick sociopath.
You defend those that steal from them.
You are truly an evil, disgusting person and we will not stop until we have destroyed you.
You, the real enemy of artists everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please, show the court on this doll where TechDirt has touched you..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are in the wrong, with every post you make, you make it more obvious. Especially because you resort to using ad hominem attacks against people who have tried to help your side to see what the rest of the world is already seeing.
We are trying to remove your blinders. The internet is NOT out to get you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am neither for or against infringement. I just do not care. I am guessing it is the same for most people reading techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Isn't that DOJ's DNS redirection motto?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view (NPOV) and to not be a soapbox or means of promotion (NOTADVOCACY).
To blank out Wikipedia to oppose SOPA/PIPA is pretty clearly in opposition to these principles of the site. The trouble is that should this legislation pass, Wikipedia may face a threat to its continued existence. This is why I'm torn; it's a choice between sticking to one's principles and risking death, or compromising one's principles to survive - which risks a slippery slope to full blown advocacy.
As one comment on the discussion states:
If there is a blanking of Wikipedia, it will have to be justified against the NPOV and NOTADVOCACY principles, and that would likely have to be done through a "this is a special case, because it endangers our very existence" argument.
I don't think I should have to point out the similarities between a slippery slope that starts with "Oh, we're only censoring this one special case," and one that starts with "Oh, we're only advocating this once special case," but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I fail to see how this is compromising its principles, anyway. The content of the site is intended to be presented in an NPOV manner; nobody ever said the site's administration had to be neutral on matters that could cripple the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_social_policies_are_not_a_suicide_pact
http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Consider my fears allayed, and my mind convinced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd like to see you at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Demonstrate NOW what it'd look like if the bill becomes law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is Wikipedia dedicated to infringement?
Nope.
The fact that you people must LIE about this demonstrates just what kind of scum you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Under SOPA it would not be implausible for someone to find something they don't like and demand a shutdown, fair use be damned.
The fact that you insist on being wilfully ignorant on this possibility demonstrates just what kind of scum-sucking bottom feeder you are. You can't live without scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And their TOS makes that clear, SOPA or not.
Care to LIE some more, scum-sucking bottom feeder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you would still think it's alright because Wikipedia would fight back, but it still doesn't answer the problem: the claim is "crazy ass", but SOPA only needs to go by the faith of a single individual or group. You're not answering the issue of the potential shutdown, which sidesteps whatever TOS or due process exists.
At least scum still has a place in the world, to feed scum-sucking bottom feeders like you. Conversely you contribute nothing to the debate but blithely disregard all risks, waiting for the day that the law passes so you can tell us, "BA HA HA HA, DOWN W/ UR INTERNETS. IT'S ALL LAW NOW SO GO POUND SAND." Nice try, but still fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
a site that “is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates copyright infringement."
Not Wikipedia.
a site where “the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement.
Not Wikipedia.
a site operated “with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement, ”as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.”
Not Wikipedia.
Stop LYING about this bill, scumbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your response does nothing to address the concern of a single person or organisation shutting down another website based on dislike or personal agenda. Under SOPA, a judge is not going to go, "Oh, Wikipedia? We all know that's definitely not an infringement site". They're going to demand a full investigation into whether the claim is true, during which Wikipedia will be shut down. This is assuming that the judge actually knows what Wikipedia is; if the judge decides that Wikipedia is, in fact, a site dedicated to infringing, Wikipedia will have to counter that decision, spending more time that the site is offline.
Until you can show why any attempt to shut down Wikipedia would be shot down at the moment of accusation, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you such a LIAR?
Did your parents raise you to think that LYING is ok?
Are they aware they raised a LIAR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, no. Your response is no guarantee that Wikipedia is immune from being shut down.
(On another note, I'm beginning to concur with MrWilson's observation in another thread. These two different snowflakes seem to have a fixation with emphasising and capitalising the word LIAR and its deriatives.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha! SOPA is all about bending over for crazy ass claims. It was introduced to congress based almost entirely on crazy assed claims (and "donations")
Now, shut your sputtering gob, you tit. You scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat, warthog faced buffoon, English bed-wetting type. Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee nosed, malodorous pervert!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I honestly LOLd, so, nice work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you're reduced to LYING, you've lost the debate, haven't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The RIAA, MPAA, and other major media conglomerates own copyright law. They've had it written, rewritted, redefined, and restructured to protect their corporate interests for as long as I've been alive -- and a hell of a lot longer before that. The Internet presents the largest challenge to the very notion of copyright to date, and the Big Media companies want that genie back in the bottle serving them instead of out of the bottle serving the general public.
SOPA and PIPA are an attempt to force the genie back in the bottle and transform the Internet from a global communications network that has changed the way people live to just another content delivery platform.
Do you like Tumblr? There's plenty of Tumblogs dedicated to things that could be considered copyright infringement. The same goes for Blogger, Wordpress, and other popular blogging platforms. One call from the Attorney General, and all of Tumblr could be blocked in the entirety of the United States -- and numerous legitimate, non-infringing blogs would be blocked as a result. That is censorship, and that is something that SOPA would allow the AG to do were it to become law.
Do you like Twitter? There's plenty of users who tweet links of all kinds, and God knows how many of those links are infringing on somebody's copyrights. Under SOPA, the AG makes a call, and all of Twitter is blocked in the US. SOPA allows this, and if you don't believe me, ask every law scholar, tech expert, and Internet engineer about it.
Would you like the see social networks evolve and change over time? Would you like to see new creative platforms spring up that enable new experiences and new opportunities for Internet users to express themselves? If you do, then that's a shame, because SOPA would place so much liability on service providers that new services will never see the light of day and existing services will be stifled into oblivion. This is a fact, and everyone who has researched SOPA knows it.
There is no debate on the effects SOPA would have upon the Internet and American society. SOPA representes corporate greed, censorship, and the desire to control the populace through the control of how said populace creates, publishes, and consumes content and information. SOPA is a direct attack on the fundamental backbone of the Internet, the First Amendment, and the American people -- and it must be stopped now.
If you can provide a compelling argument backed by facts (with legitimate sources) as to why SOPA won't do any of those things, then feel free to put the argument forth. Don't rely on the "but...but...piracy!" argument, though -- everyone sees right through it, and it will do you no favors on this site. If your argument is strong enough, you can make it without resorting to insults, paper-thin reasoning, or the bogeyman that is "Teh Evil Pirates".
If you want to "win" this debate, then man up and bring a rational argument to the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Twitter isn't dedicated to infringement.
A Twitter user dedicated to infringement has information on file with Twitter allowing that particular user to be IDd in some manner, and appropriate action taken against them or their Twitter account.
Your FUD is stale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't matter. If the RIAA and MPAA...excuse me, the Attorney General concludes that enough users are dedicated to infringing copyrights, SOPA would allow the US Government to block Twitter.
This is a legitimate concern of nearly every critic of the bill, and I have yet to see anyone provide proof that SOPA's language would not allow the government to do this other than vague and untrustworthy "we won't do it" promises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
a site that “is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates copyright infringement."
Not Twitter.
a site where “the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement.
Not Twitter.
a site operated “with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement, ”as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.”
Not Twitter.
Stop LYING about this bill, scumbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Twitter doesn't filter every post for potentially infringing links; I could post a link to Demonoid on my Twitter account, and Twitter won't do jack about it.
Twitter doesn't filter links to potentially infringing sites; ergo, Twitter has not taken deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of its service to carry out acts of copyright infringement.
Twitter could be a potential target of SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the section that deals with WILLFUL BLINDNESS in egregious infringing scenarios, you fucking ignorant freetard.
Please, go die in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your response is not a guarantee of Wikipedia not being shut down at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's a very slippery and undefined term, and Wikipedia is a big place. We already hear from the trolls here that a music blog who might have posted a copyrighted video amongst all the legit ones deserves no protection, but when people reasonably point out that Wikipedia could fall into the same boat, the same trolls turn around and claim that such a violation wouldn't be enough to take it down.
So here's the challenge: What % of content in violation makes a site "dedicated" to infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the eyes of the RIAA and MPAA? Any percent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
a site that “is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates copyright infringement."
Not Wikipedia.
a site where “the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement.
Not Wikipedia.
a site operated “with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute” copyright infringement, ”as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.”
Not Wikipedia.
Stop LYING about this bill, scumbags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You first, doo-doo head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What % of content in violation makes a site "dedicated" to infringement?"
All you have states (well copied) is that there needs to be a "high probability" of the use. Doesn't show if this is needed in one or more instances. So therefore 1 comment/post in a googelplex of comments/posts could be classified as Infringing if shown to be highly likley that that ONE post/comment was infringing.
You also copied "clear expression" is needed. Define clear expression, who decides, what is the fine line between clear and unclear, what equitable guidelines are needed.
And lets not get into "Marketing by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates copyright infringement" [emphasis added] which is so wide open to abuse, entrapment and vagueness that it should not be in any legal text ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for taking deliberate actions to avoid acting, you and I both know that's impossible to prove or disprove. YouTube takes down content when notified, but under SOPA their lack of preventative measures may or may not trigger that clause. For you to claim otherwise when Viacom is practically salivating over the possibility is disingenuous.
So after all those arguments about how core the violation must be, do you agree that the seizure of Dajaz was wrong? I notice you didn't include a %. Why not? It must be easy, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whether they are dedicated to infringement in your opinion has no weight when it comes to the opinion of other private entities. And remember allowing private entities to do what they want with their own copyright for the good of the US economy *eyeroll* (yes I'm a bully) is the whole basis of this bill.
awww you called me scum. awww your just precious *pats you on top of ya pointy little head*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no, no, no
More information is always better, especially for a public cause like Wikipedia. Contributors may overwhelmingly agree to stop SOPA, but Wikipedia itself must stay neutral.
Take a stand elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no, no, no
Maximum impact means hit fast, hit hard then back to normal as if nothing happened. By then the discussion would be so widespread that it would be impossible for Big Media to ignore and then it gets out more to the public.
I'm sure Wikipedia knows this, if nothing else they're very media savvy.
DO IT!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no, no, no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There isn't one.
Care to LIE some more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The collateral damage that will come from SOPA and/or PIPA is catastrophic to American society. Entire websites could be blocked out because of a few unruly users, and the users who were using services legally could find themselves left out in the cold with no access to their content because the Attorney General declared Tumblr or Facebook or whatever to be a "rogue site".
This is not a fevered dream or a conspiracy theory -- Constitutional scholars have said that SOPA and PIPA represent clear attacks on the First Amendment. Those two bills are tantamount to creating the Great Firewall here in the United States.
If there is a problem with large-scale commercial copyright infringement, the legislature should craft a bill to handle that problem specifically instead of trying to destroy the rights of everyday Americans with an overly-broad law that is most certainly unconstitutional.
The law should be a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, for starters, there's Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
There isn't one.
OK, then, you're flat-out saying that ICE was not acting under any legal standard whatsoever when they seized the domains of foreign websites?
I'm not disagreeing, but I somehow doubt this is really your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can claim SOPA/PIPA won't either, but it will indeed be made more difficult.
Mike Masnick hates that. Piracy must be left alone, right Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ICE also seized the domain names of numerous sites that weren't pirate sites -- like the blog that was finally given its domain name back after a year's worth of handwringing from the US government.
If the supporters of SOPA want to target copyright infringement and the sites that are truly "pirate" sites, then they should craft legislation that strikes specifically at those sites with the surgical precision of a scalpel -- not legislation that acts as a sledgehammer and breaks everything in its path in order to solve the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they weren't a pirate site, let's see them go back to behaving like they were before and watch what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Dajaz was a pirate site, then why did its owners get the domain back without being charged with a single crime? You'd think if the site was dedicated to commericalized infringement, there'd be massive lawsuits and criminal proceedings under way...and yet, here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of them. That's why dajaz was targeted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You make accusations that you can't prove and without a shred of evidence and wants to be taken seriously.
Under SOPA any crazy person like yourself would have to be taken seriously and it would harm others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How? Oh that's right circumvention laws.. like how Encryption laws prevent Encryption from being used outside of the USA,
Ha ha ha.. ha ha..ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Encryption is quite legal and circumventing DRM to enable backups or region free playing of artistic works is very legal where I reside.
And If the US Govt thinks they can stop encryption from occurring they are living in a vast world of rainbow pooping unicorns.
Just because a law is placed on the books does not mean it is enforceable or if it is enforced it better be enforced against ALL (in its own jurisdiction). No fear nor favour remember, or did you flunk legal ethics 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A court is yet to decide whether they are subject to this or not.
And If a US court does decide, the knock on effects for US companies around the world is NOT going to be pretty. Most countries are sick and tired of the "do what we say, not what we do" so therefore A lot of American companies will be subject to local laws (especially consumer laws that they hate) if Roja is decided in this way.
And if you don't think it will happen, especially with EU in the way it is and supposedly the USA is where all the money is *snort* , you are deluding yourself. None of your companies will be immune anymore since a US court will deem that if a company is registered in some other country, whether on the internet or not, then they are fully subject to that countries laws.
What a shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There isn't one.
It seems that ICE, US Customs, WTO and others disagree with you.
Oh that's right there is no "cyber" law specifically dedicated to that scary scary world of virtuality and cyberspace called the internet which the USA thinks it owns and must be the moral saviour of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It also creates new lawbreakers out of situations that occur every day.
Justin Bieber would be a lawbreaker under SOPA - and while I don't like her or her music, I think she shouldn't be made a criminal just because the movie and record companies can't stand the fact that it's not 1990 any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Got anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
His actions occurred when the worst that could happen would be an DMCA notice. That sort of sums up why the DMCA regime doesn't work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will it ever stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't need to be political...
Then, if they want to raise awareness, just briefly redirect many or all links and searches to that article. Or even milder, just front page it. No need to come down on a side of the issue. Just the relatively unbiased statement that SOPA is a very big issue that's getting ignored.
No need to come down on a side, just raise awareness. SOPA will butter and roast itself if enough people simply become aware of it.
(If someone wants to post this idea over on a Wikipedia page, I'd appreciate it. I don't know how do use that site, or I'd do it myself.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't need to be political...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Need
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Need
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think they should do a fake blackout that lets u around if u refresh 5 times or something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can trade their position on the internet today for a short burst of coverage, and find themselves ignored in the future as a biased source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyways, I think it's a good idea. But for it to work, we need to let people know that Wikipedia is actually trying to spread the message that 'This is happening right now, they're hiding the information from you!'. Wikipedia is where we get our info, what better way for it to do that and defend itself all in one shot. You know, for added fun, ask TVtropes to do it too. Maybe it'll release a legion of people from their 1000 year lurking or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiki Black Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do This!!
Sorry, but this page is being cencerors because of the SOPA bill.
If you would like to continue viewing this page and more like it please contact your congress person and demand they NAY the SOPA bill.
Put a link here so they can learn more about the bill and how it's killing our freedom and it unconstitutional.
Also give them a link to help them quickly find their congress person to make the process faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Targeting Crooked Legislators.
My impression was that the "sense of the meeting" in the Wikipedia discussion group was broadly in favor of a strike. That's settled. So the real question is how the strike will be organized. If, after the first day or so, the Wikipedia shutdown were targeted against the ten percent or so of senators and representatives who are particularly corrupt about taking RIAA/MPAA money, and the shutdown notice made particular reference to the relevant senator or congressman, well in that case the pain would be focused where it could do the most good. Such as Rep. Lamar Smith's district.
This shutdown would be leaky, of course. Anyone who wants to set up a Wikipedia mirror can do so, and the mirror can access Wikipedia from somewhere outside the bounds of the shutdown zone. However, it would be precisely the least educated people who would not know how to do something like this, and who would also have the greatest capacity for political hysteria. People like Tea-Partiers, and Occupy Wall Street types. Ordinary people would be contacting Rep. Smith's office to scream about how their kids couldn't do their class projects, and were going to flunk out of school...
Possibly even more effective, in the long run, would be to serve Wikipedia pages through to Rep. Smith's district normally, but also to provide prominent links, at the start of every Wikipedia page, to pages describing Smith's campaign contributions from the movie and music industries, and generally making a case of his corruption. With any luck, Smith would flip out, and attempt to get the school systems to ban Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/wiki_sign/
Now if only Google would go on strike... Google is a major opposer of SOPA, and it's the most visited site in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alexander wang bags
[ link to this | view in chronology ]