Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA

from the that-would-send-a-statement dept

Mon, Dec 12th 2011 4:33pm — Mike Masnick

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

176 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:35pm

Do it
Just do it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike42 (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:48pm

I don't get it...
How can there be so many people from America in Congress, but so few Americans?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
justok (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:52pm

Only block govt IPs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:53pm

DO IT WIKIPEDIA.

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 thread ]
Qyiet (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:55pm

Woah, woah..
Hold on there.. how about we just block wikipedia to the USA. While I appreciate there is bound to be all sorts of stupid flow on effects to the rest of the world if this law goes through I don't think we need to get ahead of the game here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:58pm

Re: Woah, woah..
The powers that SOPA and PIPA could give the US government could affect Internet users worldwide. A global blackout is absolutely the right move.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin H (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 4:58pm

Re: I don't get it...
They are from America, but they have lost sense of what it is to be an American. A reality check is in order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:04pm

Even though your editors censor important info for articles already, I have one thing to say....

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:05pm

Dooo eeeeeeet.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:10pm

If a site is blocked, what sort of response would one expect from their browser - a 404 error or a redirect to some spam page?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:13pm

Competitors Will Welcome The Move
Great idea. Reduce the left-wing bias on the Internet for a limited time, and drive traffic to more-balanced sites like Conservapedia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nigel Lew (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:13pm

I say hard 301 it to a congressional site. That said, shut er' down for a bit.

N.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:14pm

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.

What affect did it have on the law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
quickbrownfox, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:34pm

Wikipedia
A blackout by Wikipedia would certainly attract Congress's attention. But so would a site redirect to Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Emiliano, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:35pm

Re:
Causation is hard to say but the Italian law did get stopped in it's tracks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:37pm

Re:
That would not be effective. If Wikipedia would blackout itself for everyone, you will immediately have every person in high school and college become aware of the issue. You will also have all their teachers and parents and friends.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:48pm

In solidarity, I hope Techdirt, EFF, CDT, Democracy Now, ACLU, Google, Yahoo, Ebay and PK all go black on Thursday as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:55pm

I think a banner with "This could be the internet under SOPA/Pro-IP", but not just for Wikipedia. If Google and YouTube joined in it would grab huge attention (epseiclally Youtube)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:07pm

I completely agree that they should shut down for a week or two (or maybe not that long...) and put a message on their front page explaining the issue. Everybody in the goddamed world would see it and could then do something about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:15pm

While there is no question in my mind that SOPA/PIPA are awful pieces of legislation, and I firmly oppose them, a Wikipedia blackout is something I'm not sure I can support.

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:
Ok, great, let's go with it. Then after we run that, can we have a "Support gay marriage in Australia" type shutdown, to put pressure on politicians down here to finally do the right thing? Then let's not forget about people who have a problem with prostitution being illegal. Perhaps we can do something for them too. And then there is pot, let's not forget the potheads. Where will it end.

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 thread ]
Just John (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:17pm

Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Yes, but you have to understand that unless you happen to be a US citizen living abroad, then your opinion will not matter to those who are writing and trying to pass this law.

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 thread ]
Liz (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:25pm

Re:
�A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately.�

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liz (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:26pm

Re: Competitors Will Welcome The Move
I lol'd
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:33pm

Re:
I'd rather see Wikipedia compromise its principles to send a strong message to the world about government censorship than see it do nothing just to avoid "ruffling feathers".

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:41pm

Re:
In solidarity, I hope Techdirt, EFF, CDT, Democracy Now, ACLU, Google, Yahoo, Ebay and PK all go black on Thursday as well.

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 thread ]
Dave, 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:41pm

Re:
This is not compromising its principles. This is self-defense. This DIRECTLY effects Wikipedia so qualifies as your endangers existence requirement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 12 Dec 2011 @ 6:58pm

Re:
You mean like Wikipedia's rules are not a suicide pact or Ignore All Rules?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Mikaitis (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:05pm

no, no, no
Wow... I'm crazy against SOPA, but holding information hostage for a political motive is short-sighted, at best. As was mentioned (infrequently) in the discussion on Wikipedia, this sort of movement could easily dissolve into a Wikipedia blackout for the 99%, gay rights, or immigration, etc... While all (or none) of those may be good causes, access to information should never be held back for any reason.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:10pm

Re: Re:
Hahahahahahaha...... nice to see you put your money where your wallet is Masnick. I'd have expected nothing less from any of you.

Hmmmmm, you don't accept BitCoin by any chance?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:13pm

Re: Woah, woah..
The legislation is of vital importance to those of us outside the United States as well. So a universal shut down in protest would be preferable. There won't be mere flow on but damage to the rest of the world as a result of this. (Provided anyone in Congress can remember there is a world out there as well a an America outside of DC).
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:17pm

Re: Re:
I believe it is both compromising its principles, and self defence. My question is whether the latter justifies the former.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:19pm

Re: Re: I don't get it...
What you are saying is that they are FROM America but not FOR America.

That begs the question... who are they for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:20pm

The day Wikipedia becomes politicized, and for going against a law that goes after lawbreakers no less, is a sad, sad day for the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:21pm

Re: no, no, no
To be effective a black out of Wikipedia needs to be no longer than 24 to 48 hours. Weeks is overdoing it and it loses impact that way.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:22pm

Re:
They should redirect it to a page with numbers for our elected officials and some bullet points on what they are actually doing... might help
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:25pm

Re:
You're not making any sense. The law already goes after lawbreakers. This is a new law inventing new lawbreakers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:25pm

Re:
Once you go black, you never go back
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:27pm

Re: Re:
Nice to see that for Techdirt, like so many other of the piracy apologists, it's all about the money. The high-minded rhetoric about due process and freedom of speech are simply the smokescreen concealing the true agenda.... money.

Way to talk the talk Masnick. Don't let your principles get in the way of the money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:28pm

Re:
Staying neutral when you get punched in the face?
I'd like to see you at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:32pm

Re:
The point is SOPA could shut down Wikipedia as well if one of the studios finds a clip or pic they want to claim as a copyright violation (even though it probably won't be).
Demonstrate NOW what it'd look like if the bill becomes law!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re:
I was previously unaware of PACT, but having read it - and I know I risk causing the Internet to implode by saying this - I'm happy to say I was wrong to be concerned.

Consider my fears allayed, and my mind convinced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:38pm

Re:
SOPA goes against lawbreakers.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:44pm

Re: Re:
My concern was not so much about retaliating to a punch in the face, so much as it was that retaliation may become the response to more minor grievances. But as above, in light of PACT, I'm now satisfied that such a blanking would be sufficiently justified by Wikipedia's principles, and that with respect to those principles it would be unlikely to lead down a slippery slope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
it absolutely does matter.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:52pm

Re: Re:
Snore. Already been debunked.

Got anything else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 7:55pm

Re: Re:
This is just a lie.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
Heard of Indiana Gregg? When she and her husband decided to post their inane views on music downloads online, they also decided to claim all rights to edit her wiki page, as well as the wiki for the self-owned record label she's under. They overwrote all damning information and attempted to claim copyright over the article to ban anyone from pointing out their view on prosecuting "pirates".

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
[Citation needed]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_World_2.0 includes a sample from the album. That is enough to declare Wikipedia as a site dedicated to infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
Nice to see that for Techdirt, like so many other of the piracy apologists, it's all about the money. The high-minded rhetoric about due process and freedom of speech are simply the smokescreen concealing the true agenda.... money.

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 thread ]
DB, 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:43pm

Will it ever stop?
The problem is that the trolls that want to enact laws like this get to try again and again. I am afraid they will eventually succeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin H (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:48pm

Re: Re: Re: I don't get it...
Money. Lots and Lots of money. They are willing to get as much of it as they can at the expense of those they swore to represent. It should be criminal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Evans (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:51pm

Doesn't need to be political...
They just need to have a few people collaborate on a nice, scrupulously factual article about SOPA and it's implications. The facts themselves are pretty stacked against SOPA. No need to advocate. Standard procedure.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorta like how you're undermining the rights the founding fathers gave to the Constitution with your hatred of copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA would have no effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims.

And their TOS makes that clear, SOPA or not.

Care to LIE some more, scum-sucking bottom feeder?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't, LIAR.

When you're reduced to LYING, you've lost the debate, haven't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:17pm

Re: Re:
Which law goes after foreign pirate sites that illegally distribute material to US citizens?

There isn't one.

Care to LIE some more?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:28pm

Re: Re: Re:
Even if there isn't one, how does SOPA help more than it hurts?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:28pm

Re:
In this instance Wikipedia has control over it. Probably a custom 404 error page explaining what problems SOPA could cause.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:34pm

Re: Re: Re:
dedicated to infringement

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would be more correct to say 'hatred of copyright as it is currently implemented'. Please point to the part of the Constitution which says that copyright lasts almost a century.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please point to you ever infringing anything that old. The stuff you guys rip off is usually a few years old or less.

You need to come up with new excuses. These have all gotten stale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that when you're reduced to name-calling instead of providing factual evidence that he's wrong, your argument doesn't really look like much of an argument.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
What % of content in violation makes a site "dedicated" to infringement?

In the eyes of the RIAA and MPAA? Any percent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what's amusing? That you say people have to resort to lying and then either lie yourself with this exact statement. That or you're just an idiot. COPYRIGHT IS NOT A RIGHT. It's a privilege. And per the founding fathers and the Constitution, in it's original form, it was a LIMITED TIME privilege, granted with essentially the consent of the people. In so far as, someone got a TEMPORARY copyright on something, after a given period of time (ten years to be exact) the copyright ended and whatever was copyrighted went into the public domain. You know, to progress the science and the arts and all that. Or better said, to benefit and better society and culture. A.k.a. EVERYTHING COPYRIGHT NO LONGER IS.

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 thread ]
Karl (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:48pm

Re: Woah, woah..
how about we just block wikipedia to the USA.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nina Paley used songs in Sita Sings the Blues that, in a rational society, would have already passed into the public domain by now; instead, she had to pay an exorbitant amount of money to cover the licensing costs for the music.

Explain to me how that's fair or just or right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:53pm

Do it and hurry up. and make sure the page specifically tells everyone to protest SOPA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
Which law goes after foreign pirate sites that illegally distribute material to US citizens?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA definitions of "dedicated to infringement":

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 thread ]
xebikr (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:04pm

Re: Re: Re:
The principles have been developed to be flexible and subservient to its primary mission.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
ICE seized the US domains of pirate sites. It was all they could do under current law, and it didn't stop the sites getting foreign domains and still being accessible in the US, did it?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stale FUD. Go read the new mark up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the site is shut down by virtue of a single person's accusation until the site counters the charges the TOS won't matter until the matter is brought up. For that matter, the TOS will not matter at all where SOPA is concerned - as long as the claim exists the entire site is liable to be shut down, even if other bits of the site are legal. (You IP maximists are insistent that because one bit of the site facilitates infringement, the rest of the site doesn't matter jack squat.) Getting a site shut down needs little more than a faith-based claim that the site's staff did not sufficiently discourage or remove alleged infringement. (Other sites already have clauses against infringement in their TOSes; doesn't stop people attempting to bypass existing measures.)

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed. Those songs should be in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The new markup makes the sledgehammer smaller; it doesn't break it completely. While the new markup does take a couple of the nastier provisions of SOPA out or makes them less nasty, the majority of the bill remains as it was, and there are still numerous problems with SOPA and PIPA as they stand at this very moment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ICE seized the US domains of pirate sites.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:11pm

Re: Do it
Exactly, don't talk about it, do it. and hurry up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you're conflating issues.

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 thread ]
xebikr (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"SOPA would have no effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because Roja et al were registered in the US, they are subject to US law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorta like how you're undermining the rights the founding fathers gave to the Constitution

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your name calling is as amusing as your hyperbolic and baseless claims about SOPA.

I honestly LOLd, so, nice work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Stop LYING about this bill, scumbags."

You first, doo-doo head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FUD.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Twitter isn't dedicated to infringement.

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 thread ]
xebikr (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
.com's are not for exclusive US use. They are international in nature, as are .org, .net, and .info. The US claiming jurisdiction over them is just moronic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
dajaz was a pirate site. They had thousands of links to infringing files.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA definitions of "dedicated to infringement":

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually he's quite right. SOPA's supporters would like to believe that the law won't be abused, but since the enforcement of SOPA is based primarily on the vested interests and claims of individuals, crazy ass claims will, in fact, be treated in good faith and followed regardless of whether the claims are actually rightful. So SOPA won't have an effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims; it certainly won't discourage people from making them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:24pm

Re:
(and that Sopa can be a threat to services like Wikipedia).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA definitions of "dedicated to infringement":

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 thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many of those files were legitimately infringing, and how many of those files were sent to the blog by record labels and artists for promotional purposes?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:25pm

Re:
and they need to start doing it now, don't wait until the last minute or day. They should have done it a week ago!!! Stop talking about it already and just do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your guilty until proven innocent attitude is the type of attitude that SOPA and other similar bills take. This attitude is unacceptable and should not become law because it will result in unacceptable consequences.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that is the type of music that I, personally, prefer, anyways. That was /music/.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many of those files were legitimately infringing

Most of them. That's why dajaz was targeted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have incontrovertible proof of this fact? I'd like to see it, if you do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually the abnormal length and how reasonable people think it is ethically too long guarantees that people WILL infringe since they do not equate the UNLAWFUL (illegal means criminal which you keep conflating with civil) infringement with an unethical act. If enough of a society disrespect a law no matter how much pressure is brought to bear on them then the law (whether statute based or case based) is unworkable and NOT for the good of that society.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you're not Masnick. That would require placing principles ahead of cash-flow. In that regard, you're really no different than the studios, the labels or Google. When you boil it all down, cash trumps ideology every time.

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 thread ]
N2iT (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:38pm

Re: no, no, no
I agree with this guy Wikipedia shouldn't be using their site in this manner I mean this is like calling Child protection services on some one because you want to get back at the parents not help the kids
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not conflating issues. You said copyright is a right, I pointed out that it is not. It is actually a privilege. I then pointed out how in it's current form, it goes against the original spirit of copyright and thus against what the Founding Fathers originally had in mind for it. Which thus disproved what you said and your original statement. Do try and keep up.

"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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:41pm

Re: Re: Re:
Seems you forget about Wikipedia having copies of Artworek online that some Museums consider under copyright. Wrongly or rightly just that alone would create an untenable situation under SOPA

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 thread ]
Dwayne, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:42pm

Re: Woah, woah..
SOPA will break the internet. Australia has a free-trade agreement with the US which will essentially mean SOPA will be applied to Australian's in more ways than one. So I think a global wide Wikipedia blackout is a good idea.

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes we know that you have the intellectual ability to cut & paste, and most likely plagiarise though the question was

"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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
Which law goes after foreign pirate sites that illegally distribute material to US citizens?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 11:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not a site falls under the classification of a site dedicated to infringement is not decided by you; it's decided by someone who discovers content on the site that he/she disapproves of. What will then happen is that the site gets shut down while investigation occurs to see if the claim actually holds water.

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 11:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but it will indeed be made more difficult.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 11:31pm

do it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tsavory (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 11:49pm

No Need
in 2010 it went down for a few hours got a lot of attention so half a day will blow it all though the roof with the public. SO do it Or make a banner that takes up at least 900px x 900px with a call to action. all we need is the attention of the public from places like Wikipedia, Google, social networking sites and other big name sites that everyone visits. Get a half dozen to a dozen Big sites fighting back with what they have and know best (the internet) Congress will have no choice as the media will have to be all over it and the lines on the hill will blow up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tsavory (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:10am

Re: No Need
I meant 1600 x 900
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a prime example of why SOPA should never pass.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:56am

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is what he is fighting for, for not having to cite sources of provide any kind of real proof just hearsay, so I don't expect him to bring anything concrete to show to anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's see YOU stick to the topic.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good thing encrypting copyrighted material isn't considered circumvention.

oh wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it must be presented before the court before such a thing could happen.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"deliberate actions to AVOID confirming..."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:27am

Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Yes, let's all hold the internet hostage because of a piracy bill that messes with Google's profit and the ability for people to freeload.

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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you're not Masnick. That would require placing principles ahead of cash-flow.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So it gets brought up to court? So what? If the plaintiff in question cites a claim over portions of Wikipedia, based on that faith the judge will still shut it down. Maybe a smarter judge would shoot down the claim upon reading that it's Wikipedia, but that's assuming all judges are technically and technologically competent, and we all know it's easy to bullshit judges who don't understand the issues at hand. (For examples: Pariser, a representative for the RIAA, proclaimed in court that backing up a song file counts as "a song stolen"; industry representatives have referred to IP addresses as "Intellectual Property addresses"; Viacom charging Youtube with hosting copyrighted content that Viacom themselves uploaded; Warner Bros. hitting false positives by abusing Hotfile's filtering tools.) Even if a judge understands Wikipedia, if the plaintiff manages to convince him that itty bitty bit is somehow infringing, there's nothing at all to stop the judge from saying, "Well, everything else must be shut down immediately until we can get this rigmarole all sorted out."

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I gather that by you only arguing one of my points that you are admitting the rest are correct.

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actyually for me it doesn't.. You seem to forget that the USA is NOT where most people live.

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 thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WRONG WRONG WRONG!

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how will blindness be determined to be wilful? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't that involve shutting down the site and waiting for the owner to file counterclaims?

Your response is not a guarantee of Wikipedia not being shut down at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't live in the US.

Why are you arguing about this bill?

Are you a freeloading, parasitical freetard with an axe to grind?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:18am

isnt finals week? doing so would piss off a ton of students

i think they should do a fake blackout that lets u around if u refresh 5 times or something
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
this blog certainly wouldn't be about innovation.

And it isn't. It's about piracy apologism. Yours, to be exact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:21am

Re: Re: Woah, woah..
yes but honestly congress doesnt care about anyone else
nor does congress know what a proxy is
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:23am

Re: Re:
maybe it forwards everyone to the sopa wiki page
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the one who has to live with the fact that you're harming innovation for artists.

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 thread ]
monkyyy, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:26am

Re: Competitors Will Welcome The Move
im more of an unencyclopedia man
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:38am

Wikipedia would be putting themselves into a horrible position if they did this. Effectively, they would not longer be able to claim neutrality on topics, and this would shade everything on their site with doubt.

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 thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:43am

Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Troll harder, AC.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why can't people outside the US argue about the bill? Copyright is an issue that affects everyone - even if people live outside the US, they will still be potentially affected by US culture and how copyright dictates what they can or can't do with it. Copyright maximists also have a habit of insisting that other countries have stricter copyright systems, and therefore other countries should emulate them (refer to Dodd's insistence that if China can censor, so must the US).

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Mr. Disgruntled Artist, representing those who would not stop until Mike Masnick is destroyed...

Please, show the court on this doll where TechDirt has touched you..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Liar.

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 thread ]
teapartypooper, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excellent post *until* you used the phrase "man up". FAIL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liquid Sky, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:18am

DO IT!!! DO IT!!! DO IT!!! ...TACKY CLOTHES!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:21am

They can't just black it out, there must be a message. Else congress will think their monitors have failed or that someone stole Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
While perhaps these sites will not be taken down, though I doubt they will not be attacked at all, It would stop a new yooutube, or a new wikipedia from coming up. From the bill, it would be easy for someone to get these sites shut down untill proven innocent, which isn't as clear cut an issue as you likely think it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you can't get right, get ad-hominous?

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 thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt and most commenters on here have ALWAYS claimed to be against piracy, but you refuse to believe that, because you don't listen. You don't wanna listen, because that would ask you to question your convictions. And asking ones convictions is very painful and confronting.

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 thread ]
The Internet, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:47am

Re: Re: Re:
I'm melting! Help!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
.com is not a US domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Who is "we"? Are you royalty?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody's perfect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
Oh and why must you lie and claim that SOPA will not be (ab)used in this way?
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Lol. I hit a nerve there didn't I?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
"Hi. We have no records on you."
http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your answer to the slippery, indefinite nature of "dedicated to" is to respond with the similarly slippery, indefinite "primarily designed for".

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:30am

Piracy is bad, but yeah, SOPA is just a chocolate coated piece of crap that basically goes all "Stop piracy" (the sweet part) "*cough* By letting us turn off sites without due process and stuff *mumble*..." (the crap part).

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 thread ]
Colin, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you please post a link to your work? I'm genuinely interested to see the art you've worked on/with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only axe I have to grind is with those who take away my freedoms to further enrich the few. Why on earth would you consider it a fair trade to destroy the first and fourth amendment to our constitution to prolong the death throes of a few companies refusing to adapt to the new reality? I have never downloaded *anything* I haven't paid for, or that wasn't licensed to me to begin with; yet because a few legacy industries are lazy or too incompetent to figure how to adapt, their bags of money bribed congress to destroy my first and fourth amendment rights. Industry supporters all claim "hah! that law will *never* be abused like that..." but we've already seen how the DMCA can and has been abused. I am enormously disappointed my fellow Americans are to busy watching the latest "Housewives of the Jersey Shore" to understand they have been thrown in a pot of lukewarm water, and the heat is now turned up...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:43am

You know what I find ironic. I go to Wikipedia's homepage and SOPA isn't even mentioned 'In the news' or anywhere on the homepage (yet). They are talking about a 'blackout' yet they aren't even mentioning SOPA anywhere on the homepage. When are they going to have this blackout, after the bill passes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:54am

Re: Re:
Zach

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 thread ]
whatweDOwant, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you, Jeff, for your reasoned insights. There is plenty of room for everyone to find a way to prosper on the web - creatively and otherwise - and we have only begun innovating. I agree that we are simply watching the industries that have refused to adapt to a "new reality" as you said. With every major historic change (the internet in this case), there is inevitably the "change back" pendulum. And with that, efforts to control or limit impact of the new... but the Genie is already out of the bottle. We live in an internet world. I truly don't believe "we, the people" would stand for such tactics for long. We are more connected, clever, capable and stronger than those who wield the so-called "power" in the moment and seek only to maintain it. Yes, the water temperature is rising... I hope we have the good sense to jump out of the pot soon! Acting to stop this legislation is a good start...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just curious. Do you guys sit in commitee coming up with phrases such as "piracy apologism"?

Shouldn't it actually be 'Infringement Apologist'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DNY (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:59am

Do it
Do it: I'd suggest a blackout of six-hours world-wide, 24 hours to the U.S. and a week to all .gov and .mil users, with a single page explaining the reason and issues at hand formatted so most browsers will display the entire message w/o scrolling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Techdirt and most commenters on here have ALWAYS claimed to be against piracy"

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 thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 9:14am

Re: Re:
"Once you go black, you never go back"

Isn't that DOJ's DNS redirection motto?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 10:56am

Re: Re:
The false assumption here is that Beiber would have knowingly broken the law, a law that could put him in prison.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:04pm

Re:
Agree. First step should be to temporarily replace the Donate banner to Stop SOPA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jere, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:14pm

Wiki Black Out
I completely support Wikipedia Blackout in protest to this bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:47pm

Do This!!
Better yet, make a page that tell people about the SOPA bill. Have it so no one can view any pages in Wiki. They will all redirect to a single page saying something like 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait a minute, I just saw the same post above, about wikipedia! Stop copying other posts, you pirathiefpologiscumbag!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
deborah sullivan, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:52pm

SOPA
I say go for the black-out. We all need to do what we can to let our law makers know we disapprove of this bill. I will miss you during the blackout cause I use you most days, but you will have my respect, for certain!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 14 Dec 2011 @ 4:31am

Targeting Crooked Legislators.
Here is a practical thought: you can generally get an approximate idea of where someone is from their IP address. Not exactly, of course, or without the possibility of errors, but say 90% accuracy for an area the size of a state or congressional district. Blocks of IP addresses are allocated to telephone company switches, and suchlike, and thus to definite geographical areas. A number of internet companies use this fact to target advertising. The geographical information is good enough to advertise a chain of grocery stores which actually operates within driving distance of the browser. On the same principle, you can probably target the right politician.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 12:47pm

They must not under any circumstance get control of the Internet, its the last hope we have to oppose tyranny. Every nation in history has always slid into totalitarian ologarchy when the government succeeded in taking over the flow of information. Protect the free internet at any cost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
elinruby, 18 Dec 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re: Doesn't need to be political...
I've tried. References to DMCA and the Great Firewall of China get removed as off-topic. CDT and EFF analyses get cited as "opinion" then moved to the "opponents" section then removed altogether as non-neutral in their point of view. This topic totally points up the weakness of Wikipedia, which is that any who is for whatever reason determined enough can skew what it says on a given topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*Patriot*, 18 Dec 2011 @ 9:58pm

I feel it is neccesary. We have to fight with any means we can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just John (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 3:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..
You dear sir are giving to much credit to our officials capacity to care about more than just the donation money from the **aas, which is why there is this problem in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake F., 30 Dec 2011 @ 12:43pm

They're in the middle of a fundraising drive. They're not going black until they get their money. And, it would need to be coordinated with YouTube and Twitter for real effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stonecold, 12 Jan 2012 @ 6:18pm

Wikipedia is the sixth most visited site in the world. If Wikipedia goes on strike to protest SOPA then that'll be a major contribution! It's not like it'll be gone forever, or even a long time. Come on, sign the petition!
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 thread ]
alexander wang bags, 14 Sep 2012 @ 1:41am

alexander wang bags
I always dream to have an Alexander McQueen Handbag, but the price is far more than I can afford, alexander wang outlet and the fashion house doesn put their bags on sale frequently, Alexander Wang Clutches at least I not lucky enough until I spot the Alexander McQueen Alexander Wang Hobo Cosmetic Pouch. Although it is not a handbag,I still fall in love with it immediately.Rather than processing upon traditional designs such as LV and Gucci.Alexander Purses Alexander Wang Pumps are more stylish and unconventional.This Alexander McQueen Pouch is made from black patent leather embossed with crocodile details and aureate hardware.Although it is a tiny accessory, Alexander Wang Sandals you still can put several daily essentials inside. naizhezxq 9.08
[ link to this | view in thread ]