The Lies Of NBCUniversal's Rick Cotton About SOPA/PIPA
Justices Finally Notice Naked Statues In The Supreme Court While Arguing Why Nudity Should Be Censored

It's Official: Wikipedia To Go Dark On Wednesday

Free Speech

from the pipa-protests dept

Mon, Jan 16th 2012 11:59am — Mike Masnick
Last week, we noted that Jimmy Wales was in favor of a blacking out Wikipedia on Wednesday in protest of PIPA, joining with Reddit and lots of other sites, but that the community need to weigh in quickly. It appears they've now done so, as Wales is telling students to do their homework early, because the site is a goner for Wednesday: In fact, it appears they're going even further than Reddit, who is going down for 12 hours. All English-language pages on Wikipedia will go dark for 24 hours -- starting at midnight DC time on Wednesday. For what it's worth, I've been told by multiple Congressional staffers that Wikipedia is a tool they all rely on pretty much every day -- so expect this to get some attention. The site will also be replaced with an action alert, asking people to call and write Congress -- and Jimmy says his goal is to "melt the phone lines." Considering how much usage Wikipedia gets, that's entirely possible.

This is a big move, and it's great to see Jimmy and the community willing to take a stand like this. Jimmy is also tweeting up a storm about why this is so important. He's also responding to false claims that the bills are "dead," by noting that SOPA (1) may rise again and (2) that PIPA is still alive and well.

Either way, come Wednesday, I'm curious if Congress is still going to be claiming that it's just a "small minority" of people who dislike these bills.
Hide this

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, wikipedia
Companies: wikipedia

122 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:10pm

    Now SOPA supporters will just claim it's google AND wikipedia supporting piracy and opposing SOPA. After all, a lot of stuff on wikipedia must be stolen word for word from someone else, that's as good as piracy!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:54pm

      Re: stolen words

      If somebody does not want his words stolen, let him not tell anything. Given there were times nobody could imagine he would have to pay to go to the toilet or drink water, it's easy to imagine they try making others pay for talking or breathing.
      I hope world starts now thinking how to make life better than arguing if it is piracy to copy a bunch of crap bits of data.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    weneedhelp (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:15pm

    I would like to see the search engines join in as well. Even if it was only business hours say 6am-9pm, that would be great.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends in Congress.

      But hey, why don't you guys go for it and see what happens?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:58pm

        Re: Re:

        As far as I see the intent is to show what happens if the stipid acts get approved prior actually being approved. I hope google does not stop working during my working hours though or I must get a day off :)

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:06pm

        Re: Re:

        Ah yes, you must be one of the people who claimed that by moving sites away from GoDaddy, people were violating GoDaddy's right to free speech.

        No one is "holding the internet hostage". They are merely blacking out a few (emphasis on "a few") sites in protest of a bad law.

        This is the equivalent of a sit in, of Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of a bus, etc. I'm not comparing what they're protesting over or equivocating it in any way. I'm merely pointing out the measures they are taking in their form of protest are reasonably similar. Peaceful. With no intention to cause harm to anyone.

        Or are you against workers going on strike to protest bad working conditions too? Because that's holding the companies who have bad working conditions, use child labor, etc "hostage"?

        I wouldn't be surprised if you did think that way. Or perhaps you don't. Perhaps you only think that way when it's convenient to you.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          crade (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You forgot they are blacking *their own* sites in protest, which they have every right to do for any reason they choose. They aren't slaves who are forced to provide the services they provide, they CHOOSE to.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I think you aimed your reply at the wrong person. I'm with you on this, these sites are blocking themselves and no one else in protest. Which is their right as you said.

            So the original AC is very much wrong. But that shouldn't strike any of us as a surprise.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Are you on crack? Taking down your own site for a few hours is not holding anything hostage dumbass.
        You can still use all the awesome tools the morons who support bad legistation can build. For all the good it will do you.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Zacqary Adam Green (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re:

        We don't want to be friends with Congress. We want them to stop fucking shit up.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:19pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          We don't want to be friends with Congress.

          If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gwiz (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re:

        Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends in Congress.

        How so? This seems similar to a work stoppage to draw attention to a law or proposed law. Actually, this is even a more reasonable response since the decisions to blackout are being made by the business owners themselves and not just the employees.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        weneedhelp (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:18pm

        Re: Re:

        Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends in Congress.

        Yeah and if asinine laws pass you will watch the internet darken because every asshole in the world will be running around using this to censor what they dont like.


        Under these laws, it would be easy to get any one of the services we use and depend on daily to get shut down.

        Holding hostage? No sir, a glimpse into the future.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          LOL

          Yes, blocking What.cd, waffles, TPB, Demonoid, etc will destroy the Internet!!!

          LOL at your FUD, Freetardo.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Rikuo (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:41pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            LOL at the fact you haven't been keeping up, since Mike covered the fact that this legislation won't even be ABLE to target the Piratebay, since the Piratebay mainly uses .org, and the bill doesn't target .org websites.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            LOL

            Yes, blocking What.cd, waffles, TPB, Demonoid, etc will /end piracy/!!!

            LOL at your delusions, shill.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:53pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Here the trolls are, reduced to acting like a bunch of skiddie 4chan tools (LOL, freetard, FUD) now that their bill is going down in flames.

            I suppose we get the last LOL.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            weneedhelp (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Exactly!!! Where am I going to get my movies and mp3's from?

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:22pm

        Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)

        How can you equate a group of free content sites (or freetards as they are sometimes referred to) choosing to not provide their FREE service for a day as "holding the internet hostage". Get real!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:24pm

          Re: Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)

          Why are you a liar?

          Wikipedia isn't called a freetard site.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:43pm

            Re: Re: Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)

            Wikipedia isn't called a freetard site.

            It will be. Or just has been.

            After the umpteenth-gajillionth time that you get called “freetard”, well, you just sorta get over it.

            After the umpteenth-gajillionth time that you get called a “piracy-supporter”, well, you just sorta start to think that “supporting piracy” might not be such a bad idea.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:48pm

            Re: Re: Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)

            Considering he didn't call Wikipedia a freetard site, it's hard to see how you came up with the reply you did.

            Also, he (the AC you're replying to) is referring to the various sites participating in the voluntary "dark" time. Wikipedia, XDA, etc. These sites are all willingly going dark to protest internet censorship in general. Not just "freetard sites" as you like to spew.

            One man's "freetard site" is another man's information site. XDA would be a fine example of that. Plenty of information on there on how to bypass cell manufacturer and cell phone company restrictions and limitations. They also provide applications and tools for doing so. Some (perhaps the cell companies and manufacturers) might label them "rogue".

            I think it's kind of "let's stand together or fall separately" mindset at the moment with these sites who are going to go dark. Not a bad idea.

            Do try and provide facts when you comment. Rather than insults, misinformation, etc.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)

              One man's theft is another man's sharing.

              Your propaganda only becomes valid when you decide to share your money with me.

              Paypal me here: Skullfuckedpirates@parasites.cd

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:55pm

            Re: Re: Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)

            Yes, it is a freetard site, because it gives stuff away for free. Anyone who gives away ideas for free is a freetard - they should pay you money, right?!

            Copytard shilling over 9000.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            ArkieGuy (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:57pm

            Re: Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)

            The real question is "why are SOPA supporters liars"?

            But seriously, I wasn't meaning that Wikipedia is a "freetard site", I was actually pointing out the irony in SOPA opposition (a FREE site choosing to go offline) being viewed as "taking the internet hostage".... Ok, maybe I wasn't pointing out irony, maybe it more pointing and laughing at an inane post. ;)

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              ArkieGuy (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 2:03pm

              Re: Re: Freetards united against tyranny! (Trademark pending) ;)

              Oh, and I wasn't logged in when I posted the original "Freetards united against tyranny", line. Consider me logged in now!

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:23pm

        Re: Re:

        Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends. But hey, why don't you guys in Congress go for it and see what happens.


        FTFY.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:33pm

        Re: Re:

        It's well known the Internet is only used for downloading porn and stealing music and movies. So there's no reason it would have an effect anyway.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        rubberpants, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:58pm

        Re: Re:

        What would win us friends in Congress?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 2:42pm

        Re: Re:

        Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends in Congress.

        So why does SOPA have friends in Congress - since that is pretty much what it does!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:40pm

        Re: Re:

        "Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends in Congress."

        It will however hold congress hostage. "This far no further". I think this is the sentiment of all of most people.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 12:53am

        Re: Re:

        "Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends in Congress."

        Given that this is exactly what your friends are lobbying congress to achieve, where does that leave you?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:59am

        Re: Re:

        "Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends in Congress."

        Wikipedia offers a free service. What, are you worried that you might lose your free service for a day? Freetard.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      CD (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:09pm

      Re:

      The search engines could respond by filtering all the RIAA and MPAA links in their databases. Reply to questions why it's gone...well there was this guy that said that he owned this line of code in the source of your HTML and it fell under his copyright. So, we had to remove all of your sites that had this comment in them...

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 6:45pm

        Re: Re:

        All they need to do is say, due to on going and legal disputes with content holders we will no longer be hosting links to ANY of their content, on any sites legal or infringing. We do this because there is no way to determine what is and is not infringing.

        Go SOPA!

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:20pm

    I hope Techdirt goes dark too.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    al, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:21pm

    Good for them. I have been an artist for 25 years the past 8 were dedicated to 3d gaming. After several attempts to get investors I succeeded. Unfortunately due to the pending SOPA legislation again I say "pending". I lost my investors, and 8 months worth of work, my employees 10 in total, not including myself.

    I thought SOPA was going to protect American Job's not loose them. This law has not even been passed, and it lost me and 10 other Americans Their Jobs. I can just imagine when it is passed. Hold on tight Here goes the small buisness. Thank You

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Suja (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:55pm

      Re:

      I thought SOPA was going to protect American Job's not loose them.

      it does protect them.... American entertainment industry's jobs

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:57pm

      Re:

      You're a liar.

      No one with third grade spelling abilities gets VC from anyone.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 2:22pm

      Re:

      Please explain how your project lost funding because of SOPA. Were you writing software to steal movies and music? I don't understand why an investor would pull out of a project that creates original material, the law would actually assist you in your endeavors rather than hinder them.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Mischa, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:07pm

        Re: Re:

        If al had been 'writing software to steal movies and music' then he probably couldn't have gotten an investor in the first place. They tend to frown on illegal activities.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:26pm

        Re: Re:

        Prove that the material is "original"; prove that the material does not infringe on anything. You can't, and neither can investors.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:21pm

      Re:

      Somehow I'm not surprised that the bill has cost you and others. Nor does it surprise me that the supporters of the bill really don't care. It's not about start ups and small business but about giant established companies and protecting them.

      It's just to bad you got caught up in this mess.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ShellMG, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:22pm

    Glad to hear they're encouraging people to give congress an earful. Including a simple link to a page listing all phone numbers would be ideal.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FM Hilton, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:34pm

    SOPA isn't dead, merely 'resting'

    Good for Wikipedia.
    But with some good news (SOPA might be delayed), there's also a rumor going around that SOPA might be given to the HSA for total rule adoption-which means we're doomed.

    The Homeland Security Agency would totally love absolute control of the Internet.

    I hope the rumor isn't true, and it's just fear-mongering-but if it is, there's no way to fight a 'formal adoption of rule' by a government agency that can't be bought.

    At least legally.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:48pm

      Re: SOPA isn't dead, merely 'resting'

      Got a citation for that? Also, the authority under which the rule is being made?

      By the way, it's called the "Department of Homeland Security", not the Homeland Security Agency.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TheNutman69321 (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:35pm

    I am very glad Wikipedia decided to join in. They will get far more attention than anyone else.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Violated (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 3:03pm

      Re:

      Oh and what if FaceBook go down? I expect most of their regulars would freak out like WW3. Some people I know have even urged eBay and PayPal to join this blackout but these two go beyond my belief.

      Wikipedia (Wikimedia) sure is a big site but there are bigger fish in that sea and asking them to sign up may prove fruitful.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Donny (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:45pm

    Hrm

    But guyz what if the ends don't justify the means? What if using a reference tool as though it were political activism tool is not ok? What if 'effectiveness' is not a measure of what's acceptable? What if doing all this is some kind of transgression of duty?


    Also, can someone explain what's to stop this decision opening the door for subsequent political abuse of wikipedia? Pleading special circumstances? Isn't that the same logic behind why it's ok for PIPA to mangle established law and muzzle free expression?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Hrm

      First and foremost Wikipedia is an independent corporation. That is not owned by any government. I see no conflict here. Unless you think that corporations themselves should stay out of politics which I totally agree with.

      When the RIAA, MPAA NBC, and all other corporations stop trying to act like they should have free speach then Wikipedia should follow suit.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:00pm

      Re: Hrm

      They don't need a special reason to black out their own website, its that the law allows censoring other people's sites that is a problem, not your own. You are already allowed to use your own website as you like and put up or take down whatever you like on it. I'm not sure I'm following how you think it's the same logic at all. They don't need any special circumstance if it's their own site, they can change the content whenever they like. They could take their server and throw it in the bathtub if they wanted.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PCDEC, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:01pm

      Re: Hrm

      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: Hrm

        The penalty for participating in politics is that you have to talk to them :)

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Donny (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:18pm

        Re: Re: Hrm

        Agreed.

        But you're conflating "wikipedia the website & reference tool" with "wikipedia the organisation & people who maintain it".

        Should the latter get involved in politics? Definitely.

        Should the former? I kinda think 'no'.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          crade (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: Hrm

          Websites don't do things like become involved in politics :) The organization is just taking down the website as part of the organization's protest.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm

            Users' protest. We users were asked what we wanted to do. Last I checked we'd voted "yes" by quite a margin. Favorite was to black out the US and put up a banner worldwide.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm

              voted "yes" by quite a margin

              According to a link I saw an hour or two ago:
              85% Yes
              15% No

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 2:03pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm

                I was mistaken about the method. Looks like a global blackout is the favored method at this time.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  crade (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 2:39pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm

                  It's still the organization's choice, both whether to put it up for vote and what to do with the result. I would call it the wikipedia's organization's protest, supported by most wikipedia's users.

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:20pm

        Re: Re: Hrm

        I so love that quote. 2000 years later, and stuff from before copyright still has relevance.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:28pm

      Re: Hrm

      Wikipedia is violating no laws in going dark nor does it endanger free expression as the Wikimedia folks have decided to exercise just that by going dark.

      The reason they too so long to come to this decision is that they were concerned about their place as a reference work taking part in politics but have decided that this is well worth the risk. Good for them!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:53pm

    It's already been announced SOPA won't even be voted on.

    But he's going to politicize the internets' encyclopedia anyway?

    Jimmy fucked this one up. Sad.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      First and foremost Wikipedia is an independent corporation. That is not owned by any government. I see no conflict here. Unless you think that corporations themselves should stay out of politics which I totally agree with.

      When the RIAA, MPAA NBC, and all other corporations stop trying to act like they should have free speach then Wikipedia should follow suit.

      Nope no fuck up sorry, And FYI Wikipedia has been politicized since inception. This isnt even the first protest they have done.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 12:57pm

      Re:

      Nah, this is just Jimmy saying he thinks all the SOPA supporters need a high five. in the face. with a chair.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The eejit (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:02pm

      Re:

      You forgot about PIPa which has similar provisions, and is being voted on next week, as well.

      So if he changes SOPA to SOPA/PIPA, it's still valid.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      rubberpants, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:07pm

      Re:

      Concern Troll.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:31pm

      Re:

      Good grief! Who is politicizing the internet? Jimmy Wales? In what sense is respecting the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the users "fucking up"?

      I think you are a spambot?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    RevCharlieD (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:16pm

    SOPA & PIPA

    DO youactually think that Congress cares about us? Do you think we represent a significant portion of the world; enough so that we could garner support or even gain there ear? When we contribute the amounts of money that the proponenets and benificiaries of these bills do we will have Congress ear, then thsy will listen, not before.

    Good luck

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Hephaestus (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:25pm

      Re: SOPA & PIPA

      You are so wrong, you are seeing the first steps towards fixing the political system in the US. People actually taking an interest in the laws being passed. Much like the NRA supports the second amendment, we the people are saying, in no uncertain terms, do not fuck with the first, and fourth amendments. If you do, we will remember and vote you out of office.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:31pm

    What needs to be included into the memo of these protests is something mentioning copy protection lengths and something about people demanding that copy protection extensions be retroactively repealed so that works can finally enter into the public domain.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:33pm

    let's hope wikipedia stays dark

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    gorehound (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:46pm

    I am glad that Wikipedia and others are making a stand against these awful and corrupt Bills.
    Please nameless groups on the Internet expose the dirt behind these two Bills for the public to see.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 1:52pm

    Wikipedia: You Win 2 Internets

    Hmmm. Time to make that donation to Wikipedia that I've thought they deserved for years.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violated (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 2:53pm

    Heroes and Chickens

    Nice to hear the official word.

    I discovered the poll results earlier by accident while checking through who joined this SOPA/PIPA blackout and who did not. It was a very close tie between full site blackout and a top banner announcement but I was glad to spot a full English language blackout.

    I did not spot their part about 24 hour blackout when I only noticed the approval for the 18th.

    Well this is sure a great start in giving them a day they will never forget. I have already been going around asking sites like FaceBook to join this strike. I joke this could make good "nuclear blackout" recovery testing for their employees.

    Wikipedia is a very big site but you have to wonder if Mark Zuckerberg really has "balls" big enough to take out his FaceBook creation? Scared are we? Chicken? Recovery possible? We shall see.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    LC (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:30pm

    Excellent.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    LC (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:36pm

    Re: Re:

    I agree. If sites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google and others that receive high amounts of traffic were to go down for 24 hours it would get PIPA/SOPA stacks of extra attention. Especially Facebook and Youtube, who could be considered rogue sites under the laws and shut down.

    Wikipedia is a very good start though.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    LC (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:47pm

    "Holding the internet hostage will not win you any friends in Congress"

    It to attempt to show those who aren't quite-so-net-savvy what the future WILL hold under these bills. A 12-24 hour long taster, if you will.

    And if that statement was true, why do the bills have any support at all in Congress? They'll will effectively leave the internet at the mercy of the RIAA/MPAA, their archaic business models and anyone else whom has the capacity to take the time required to put up a real or false copyright claim against a website or business.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 5:16pm

      Re:

      Archaic business models like offering their content for sale?

      You're right, they should just spend all the money producing it and then let you rip it off.


      You're a fucking idiot.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:05pm

        Re: Re:

        Yes, insult him and provide nothing to disprove what he says.

        They are archaic business models. Focused entirely on physical goods, when what people want is digital content (in non-physical format) at reasonable prices with as little delay as possible easily accessible to them and to be used as they see fit (on any device they may own).

        If they can't/don't want to meet their customer's wants, somebody else will. It's that simple. This is how business works.

        Now if the people meeting the demand are doing so illegally, while that is wrong, at least they're willing to step up. If the people able to provide the product legally aren't willing to do so, that's their loss obviously. And only further distancing themselves from their customer's and their customer's wallets/purses.

        Me thinks the "fucking idiot" is the you and anyone who thinks that in this day and age you can still dictate terms to customers, as if they have no other options available to them. The truth is they do. Whether you approve of them or not. You won't give them what they want, well... as I said, your loss.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:38pm

        Re: Re:

        Off your meds?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 16 Jan 2012 @ 8:35pm

        Re: Re:

        "Archaic business models like offering their content for sale?"

        Archaic business models like offering their content for sale in outdated formats at prices that exceed their value, while delaying or crippling the same content in methods and time-frames that newer technology allows and customers want.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ike, 16 Jan 2012 @ 7:45pm

    Ironic

    Oddly enough, Wikipedia going dark might prevent some people from being informed about the reason for which it's going dark.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      martyburns (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:45am

      Re: Ironic

      Except that isn't the site going to have a big banner saying why?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        ike, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:03pm

        Re: Re: Ironic

        Sure, but one might be driven to look up details about the acts, or the politicians involved, or the DMCA, etc. Wikipedia is normally a good place to start such research.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    roskorapikov, 16 Jan 2012 @ 8:16pm

    I can read the wikipedia in spanish, no problem if they shut it down in english for 12 hours.
    I can´t read simplified chinesse.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2012 @ 11:13pm

    I wonder about something. The U.S. Government thinks it can shut down the internet. What I'm wondering is whether the exact opposite is in fact the case: that the internet could shut down the U.S. Government.

    "For what it's worth, I've been told by multiple Congressional staffers that Wikipedia is a tool they all rely on pretty much every day -- so expect this to get some attention." Ok, so what would happen if, instead of a 'blackout' of Wikipedia and other important sites for one day, a blackout that would harm everyone who wanted to access those sites that day (including innocent students trying to do their homework), what if those sites implemented a selective blackout, refusing to serve their web pages to any IP address that resolved to a .gov or related domain? If no senator, no representative, no congressional staffer, no federal agent at any federal agency no matter how large or small, could use Google or any other search engine, could not access information on Wikipedia or any other online encyclopedia or dictionary or archive, could not get the news from the NY Times web site or any other newspaper, not just wednesday but every day thereafter, would that get the government's attention better than hurting all the other people who use the internet?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:37am

    "SOPA" in portuguese means soup.

    heh.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Call me Al, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:58am

    This is bringing attention to the issue

    I'm not sure what it is like over in the US but Wikipedia's stance here has brought a lot of attention to the issue in the UK. Last I looked the most shared BBC article today was about this and the Telegraph also has a front page article on their website.

    The Guardian has one in their Tech section, although they are using "Twitter boss slams 'silly' Sopa protest" as their headline which I'm not particulary keen on.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TheNutman69321 (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:21pm

    Blackout is live and can easily be gotten around by stopping the page from loading completely. Good news for those of us that already know SOPA sucks but still want access to Wikipedia.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


The Lies Of NBCUniversal's Rick Cotton About SOPA/PIPA
Justices Finally Notice Naked Statues In The Supreme Court While Arguing Why Nudity Should Be Censored
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.