Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
from the we'll-see-tomorrow dept
Well, well. It appears that Lamar Smith really wants to tempt fate and stick his tongue out at the internet. Beyond announcing that he's moving forward with SOPA, he's also continuing to mock the critics, calling the Wikipedia blackout a "publicity stunt":“It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act," Smith said in a statement on Tuesday. "The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy."Smith, as per pretty much all of his statements on SOPA is either misinformed, disingenuous... or just lying. First of all, the anti-circumvention provisions certainly do apply to domestic sites, including Wikipedia. And as a site that provides information, it could certainly run afoul of those provisions. But, more to the point, Wikipedia isn't just speaking out because this bill impacts Wikipedia directly, but because of its wider concern over what this bill represents: a blacklist that seeks to block access to websites. You can be secure that it won't impact you and still take issue with the principle behind the bill.
It's a shame that Lamar Smith can't understand that, despite so many people online understanding it. I assume some of those people may give Rep. Smith a call tomorrow to express that point to him directly.
Meanwhile... shocker of shockers, the MPAA is out with a statement using a very similar phrase concerning the blackouts. Gee, kinda makes you wonder if Lamar Smith and the MPAA are consulting on talking points:
It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.This is hilarious only in that we're talking about the MPAA here, who is famous for abusing its powers and "intentionally skewing the facts to incite" people (mainly in Congress) "in order to further their corporate interests." Seriously, who honestly thinks that Wikipedia, Reddit and others are shutting down their sites to "further their corporate interests?" The MPAA -- as per usual, remains totally, and completely tone deaf to what's going on.
A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”
The MPAA wants SOPA to further its corporate interests. Wikipedia is a non-profit. Its interest is in stopping the MPAA from mucking up the internet, not in "furthering its corporate interests." Once again, it would be nice if the MPAA and Lamar Smith had the decency to be honest on this issue, but they're still working by the old playbook... the one where you lie and donate to campaigns until Congress gives you the laws you want, no matter how unnecessary or damaging they may be. They're seriously underestimating what's been activated online over the past few months. It's a massive miscalculation to brush off these legitimate concerns as a publicity stunt.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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, lamar smith, pipa, protect ip, publicity stunt, sopa, tone deaf
Companies: mpaa, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it's totally irresponsible for them to black out the site when all these people (the ones who have never heard of it?) depend on it so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What we should really be asking if it would be irresponsible for, say, Lamar and the ITC or DOJ to black out a site for a day against the site owner's will? Say Dajaz1, just as an example.
And what if they did it for about a year instead of a day?
And what if they did it under false pretenses, a shield of secrecy, and with no explanation at all? And what if it were pretty much done just on the whim of the RIAA?
And what if it turned out they were completely wrong, and had to reverse their actions? Would that qualify as irresponsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no way the MPAA/RIAA is going to let this go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia and other sites are a powerful voice, too. Especially when united.
In fact, this kind of activism is the only possible antidote to getting the sheeple masses to actually understand what is at stake, and how important it is.
Are you suggesting Wikipedia not do it, and just leave that job to Rupert?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here's an idea: why doesn't one of the -AA's crowdsource some ideas for fighting piracy via an open system like Wales'? Maybe they could whip up some sort of IP Protection wiki or the like instead of bitching about how a bunch of "piracy apologists" are ruining their pet legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would require actual work. The coolest thing about this so called "anti-piracy legislation" is that it forces everyone else to enforce "your" rights, at no expense for "you".
That's what we call a Win-Win situation. Because "you" Win...twice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which he has decided to politicize. Everyone knows SOPA wouldn't have any effect on Wikipedia, so if Wales is going to get into the lobbying business, shouldn't he offer alternatives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia is not alone, open source has showed everybody that you can give away your "product" and make millions.
So why again is there talk about censorship tools needed to protect something when it has been proven beyond a doubt that such tools are not needed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA has been shown to be harmful, and ineffective towards it's stated goal.
Do you really want to pass a law that will rob you of your rights, while giving nothing in return?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone knows SOPA wouldn't have any effect on Wikipedia
This "everyone" you speak of must be the same "no one" that is protesting against SOPA. They're both fictional constructs used by shilling entities to hastily shore up their leaky arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First of all, the anti-circumvention provisions certainly do apply to domestic sites, including Wikipedia. And as a site that provides information, it could certainly run afoul of those provisions. But, more to the point, Wikipedia isn't just speaking out because this bill impacts Wikipedia directly, but because of its wider concern over what this bill represents: a blacklist that seeks to block access to websites. You can be secure that it won't impact you and still take issue with the principle behind the bill.
Just because there's no wording that states "and this means you, Wikipedia" does not mean that Wikipedia can't or won't be affected. Not only that, but this is a protest, showing solidarity for the internet as a whole. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of being part of "something bigger than yourself." Not every player involved in this is self-interested. In fact, almost all the self-interest is contained in those pushing the legislation. There's not much of that on the other end with those trying to push back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't come up with any language in the bill that would affect them.
Surprise, surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying no one will have "responsibilities" and can't be punished if they ignore the MPAA?
The whole point of the law is to force locals to stop doing something some people find it bad but can't prove it, never proved and never will prove it happens because it doesn't happen, that is why they need broad laws to encompass the "uncertainty" of the certain "harm" they claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
It doesn't matter if they are directly targeted *now* because if this powergrabs continue they will eventually be destroyed as well. maybe not by this law, but by the next one. And I bet everything that there will be a next one regardless.
So stop this ignorant shilling and stop playing divide and conquer.
Wasn't one of the most important credos in the US "united we stand, divided we fall"? here people are uniting against an awful and unjustified powergrab on behalf of some "big" companies (really, they cover not even 1-2% GDP)in Favor of everyones freedom. Yes, even yours, so you jackass should reconsider your allegiance, because once they come for you, nobody will be left to rally for you. And they WILL come for you, because in eye of corporations people are expendable, money is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since Wikipedia relies on user submitted content, it could be viewed as facilitating the commission of criminal violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lets finish your quote:
"and (3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
So it's referring to a foreign site behaving in a manner that if it were a domestic site would result in law enforcement action.
So not only is it not referring to a US site like wikipedia, you also chose to lie by omission, leaving out the rest of the sentence.
Making you...
A liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"by reason of acts described in paragraph (1)"
So anybody found to be helping them would be considered accomplices and have the privilege to endure the same faith as the foreign website.
How stupid are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means if this site wasn't hiding offshore and was residing in the US, it would be subject to seizure because it would be ILLEGAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take SOPA/PIPA out back, heave them into a dumpster, and light them on fire.
Then get your whining, entitled asses OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT. Pay your own freight, fix your retarded business models, and shut the everlovingfuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since we can't do nothing about foreign websites we will do the next best thing and that is punch other business which we think are helping them and we want immunity to do it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
According to the definitions of domestic and foreign, it is all about where it is registered, so if Wikipedia has a domain name registered outside the US that makes them foreign for the law.
Problems start at the begining of the fraking bill already.
Sources:
Open Congress: H.R.3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act
The Library of Congress: Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012) - H.R.3261.IH
US House Of Representatives - Committee On The Judiciary: Manager's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who exactly do you think you're fooling with this nonsense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just a part of it needs to infringe so they can and will be shutdown if that is what the AG wants and there will be no repercussions moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This guy is nothing but a slimy liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only a portion of the website needs to be dedicated to infringement
What is the problem you can't read?
Portion means any piece of it, that its classified as illegal means the entirety can be shutdown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site'
A post is a portion of a website it doesn't need to be the entire website, where in the law it does state that it needs to be the entire website?
Because if that part exists there is a conflict of words in there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is the biggest lie of all saying it needs to be entirely dedicated to infringement when in the law it is saying right there that only portions of it need to be considered "dedicated to infringement".
You are an idiot or a liar, maybe both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please point to the text showing your version Slimer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh really? Then post the exact language that says that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
Can you do word searches in text?
If you can blink twice and search for "or portion thereof".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh your Honor I didn't know you was capable of seeing into the future and know what courts will decide already.
Only parts of it need to be infringing so if you take action against the Wikipedia foundation you are shuting down the entire Wikipedia not only the wikipedia.cn or wikipedia.co.uk, you are affecting the entire organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia isn't dedicated to infringement. The bill won't affect them in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A post could be dedicated to infringement, an image anything apparently.
Can you point where in the law proposal it says only if a website is entirely dedicated to infringement it will be punished?
Because the words that I see most there are "or portions thereof".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site 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--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) 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 a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either means "any of these", it doesn't mean "only this one".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) 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 a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement."?
of course you can't, you fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You people are shameless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The whole law is bonkers, for start to end is one pile of crok, not only SOPA but also PIPA and OpenSOPA(or whatever it was called).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA also may criminalize and make US businessmen criminals and responsible for anything that happens in their websites that are registered outside the US.
So if an American has a website that is registered outside the US and something happens there he will be responsible and liable for it even if what it happens over there is legal in that part of the world, Americans can't own business elsewhere apparently.
Every single American website/internet business will have to create LLC's ad nauseum to limit their liabilities, they will have to have one American company and another for global trade.
That is just perfect.
Make every American asset less desirable on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Portion is not defined, and last I checked, any portion, however small, is still a portion. Including a single, user-generated post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For starters, and the part you quoted from "either" onwards that states any site that has avoided "confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code".
I should also note the part you quote only applies to the private action that can be taken by presumed copyright holders, not to any others, taken from section 103.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia is a service provider and will have to censor anything the government says it has too of face liability for it and they have 5 days to comply or else, oh that is just marvelous, so people don't have a way to refute anything, worse there is nothing in the bill that will even hint of sanctions for abuse of that power, there is no anti-abuse clause in there nowhere, so it will be abused just like the DMCA is being abused today.
Sources:
Open Congress: H.R.3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act
The Library of Congress: Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012) - H.R.3261.IH
US House Of Representatives - Committee On The Judiciary: Manager's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That text refers to ISPs.
It refers to foreign sites that a court has defined as dedicated to infringement.
And it's about DNS blocking, which isn't even in the bill anymore.
Absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia.
You are one gigantic barrel of fail today, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And who talked about DNS, they will have to do it in another way.
It has everything to do with Wikipedia, if any part of Wikipedia is accused of infringement it will force ISP to try and block it everywhere inside the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If any part of Wikipedia is found to be accused of being part of a rouge website the government gets the power to shut it down and make payment systems close their accounts, oh that is nice, wikipedia.cn can be used to shutdown wikipedia.com fantastic.
Sources:
Open Congress: H.R.3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act
The Library of Congress: Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012) - H.R.3261.IH
US House Of Representatives - Committee On The Judiciary: Manager's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, who exactly do you think you're fooling with this nonsense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anybody that wants to read it can and they will reach the same conclusions, people don't need to be lawyers to see the problems they are so clear that no one is buying the BS Lamar is trying to push them to believe.
Sources:
Open Congress: H.R.3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act
The Library of Congress: Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012) - H.R.3261.IH
US House Of Representatives - Committee On The Judiciary: Manager's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then they came for Grokster and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a freetard.
Then they came for the Pirate Bay but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a foreigner.
Then they censored me but everyone who tried to speak up for me was already censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These bills do little or nothing to stop any actual piracy.
They do have the potential to be used to stifle competition and innovation.
They do little to help protect or create job in the entertainment industry (although they may do wonders for the tech support industry).
They do open the internet up to the potential for more breaches, hacking and spam (there's a reason that not just internet engineers have come out in force against this bill but that groups like Anonymous have been suspiciously quiet in the matter).
In addition it's not just a matter of SOPA/PIPA.
They more or less rammed the DCMA through.
They more or less rammed ACTA through (mostly behind closed doors and in secret).
They are already working on TPP (which is to ACTA what SOPA is to the DCMA) behind closed doors.
So it's not just how SOPA/PIPA can be used it's also how they can be used in conjunction with other legislation. To start, SOPA/PIPA set a precedent for other nations to adopt there own versions (other countries already have these bills under consideration, the State Department has already successfully pressure Spain into adopting one, and the entertainment industry is trying to pressure Canada into adopting one to be included in negotiations on TPP).
And while a US site clearly isn't foreign to the US, it would be foreign to Spain or the UK, or Germany, and thereby subject to similar provisions in the bills of those countries. Then all that is needed is a provision in some "trade agreement" like ACTA or TPP (or whatever comes after TPP if they can get that bill rammed through) that would allow any member nation to take action for violations of any other member nation (thereby allowing the US to take down a website not for violating the US version of SOPA, but for violating say the Netherlands version of SOPA).
And if you think the industry isn't going to push for such a provision at some point, you are clearly ignoring almost the entire history of the RIAA and MPAA.
And if you think the entertainment industries efforts will end with SOPA/PIPA or TPP, you are again pretty much ignoring the entire history of the RIAA and MPAA (as there continual effort to push longer and broader copyright extensions has repeated proven).
And if you think the government (and industry) won't abuse these rules as well, you've largely chosen to ignore the (at least recent) history of the federal government. Just look at there abuses of the Patriot Act and the DCMA.
I don't need to point out the exact language in the bill that directly affects Wikipedia.
I don't need to point out the exact language in the bill that directly affects me.
In fact, one of the biggest problems with the bill is largely it's lack of "exact language" for anything.
At some point a line needs to be drawn, and a lot of people have chosen this as that line.
As the old saying starts: "First they came for the communists.."
Well I'm not about to wait until they get to the "trade unionists" or the "jews" much less wait for them to get to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The safe harbor provision actually was a very important change to US copyright law, providing online providers with protection from infringement liability that is not generally available to others in the off-line world.
If the service providers follow the DMCA rules they are essentially immune from liability. Failure to do so, however, can place them in the same legal position as those in the off-line world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dajaz1, for those who don't know, was seized for about a year by ICE under that legislation, also promoted by Lamar Smith.
If there is no exact language you can find that would incriminate Dajaz1, then we can reasonably conclude that these vague laws are routinely and clumsily abused by vested interests and over-reaching government agencies to stifle freedom and shut down sites unfairly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't binary code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not only that, but why are the alternatives constantly dismissed? If I protest the death sentence, no one suggests I come up with an "alternative" deterrent. They simply accept the fact that I mean that the death penalty should be done away with. They don't insist that I find another way to punish murderers.
So why is it that anti-piracy apologists insist that we come up with "alternative" ideas to help them reach their goals? Isn't our statement of "SOPA is bad" enough? Shouldn't that indicate that we mean "don't craft any more 'anti-piracy' legislation"? Why are we tasked with solving their problem, one that arguably would be better off ignored, with the time, attention and money being thrown at obtaining and retaining customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Capitalist Lion Tamer: I'm against the death penalty
**AA: Why aren't you proposing alternative solutions? And if they don't result in death then they don't count!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"technology made this (infringement) happen, so it's technology's resposibility to fix it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are no alternatives simply because there is no need for any, there is not a problem to be solved and the people saying that "piracy" is a real problem are the real problem, trying to make fantasy reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These are the same everyones who knew the Patriot Act and the DCMA wouldn't, and in fact couldn't, be abused right?
I'd like to meet one of these "everyones" so I can tell them "here's your sign".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jimbo isn't the one behind this. He left it up completely to wikipedia's editors if we wanted to go forward with any kind of SOPA/PIPA protest. I'm on the list of signatures on the vote for the blackout.
Jim Wales is allowing the community to voice its protest through Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. You don't have to be a cow to say the milk tastes bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What?
You expect big media to try profiting off of the hard work of other people, most of whom having no hope of ever being paid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right. What's surprising is that they haven't done this already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you going to pay to put 30% of the population of every country in the world behind bars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Murder laws" sounds like you're saying laws that advocate for murder.
Just a heads up.
Oh yeah, and real nice form of debating you have there. You didn't even start with reason or logic. You jumped straight into the ad homs like a champ and aren't refuting anything with actual facts or evidence (you know, like showing specific text from the bill that says Wikipedia WILL NOT be able to be harmed/censored in any way).
I place the burden of proof on you. As you seem to do to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tactic #5 in the AC playbook, usually reverted to after calling people thieves and saying they haven't read the bill have failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, you think nobody commits murder because there are laws against it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here's an alternative.
Your corporate overlords in the legacy industries can start offering compelling products and services that people want at prices customers are willing to pay.
Until then, stop corrupting our political process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alternatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All I see is a couple of bills designed to help the entertainment industry try to regain control of all the distribution channels so they can continue to charge monopoly rents and force content creators to relinquish their copyright.
I'd advocate their CDs and DVDs should be dumped into the ocean at this point, but unfortunately they won't dissolve like tea does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, only the bad ones that would mess up the internet and not stop piracy. Besides, I wasn't aware he has to do a politician's job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
GG, BBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't normally write to complain about anything, but the BBCs reporting on the subject of a proposed American legislation, SOPA and PIPA was erroneous and misrepresented those protesting against SOPA/PIPA.
The reporting made those protesting seem like they were pro-piracy or copyright infringement. This is NOT the case, most people are protesting because this bill could cause serious harm to the internet security structure as well as giving censorship privileges to private parties. All this without any form of liability or due process.
There is enough evidence from the last so called 'piracy law', passed by the American government, the DMCA, that shows these draconian laws are misused to help slow down or even shut down business competitors, it's even used to censor free speech. Google has made no secret that the DMCA has a very high percentage of false take down notices.
Also, this bill will do nothing to prevent copyright infringement, and speaking as a content producer with a very good technical background, I can assure you that in my commercial experience, copyright infringement does no major economic harm, having had my products 'pirated' many times. According to all the independent reports and even the American governments own GAO, most figures spouted by the pro-copyright industry are totally misleading.
If everyone else in the UK reading this could do the same, perhaps we can get them to take notice or at least give both sides equal footing in the news coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ghostbusters 198something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think what they are talking about in the article is one of the most rediculous abuses of power possible and that is misinformation from a trusted source, and the source that I am talking about is not Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sect. 101(23) : U.S.-DIRECTED SITE- The term `U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether--
(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide--
(i) such goods and services,
(ii) access to such goods and services, or
(iii) delivery of such goods and services,
to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.
Sect. 103(a)(1): DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site 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--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) 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 a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
Sect. 104: IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--
(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and
(2) the action is consistent with the entity's terms of service or other contractual rights.
Translation:
Sect. 101(23) establishes a separate group of sites SOPA applies to: US-Directed sites. A site only has to be ACCESSIBLE in the US to qualify under this section. There are NO, I repeat, NO exceptions for sites that are based in the US.
Sect. 103(a)(1) defines a "Site Dedicated to Theft of US Property."
Sect. 104 COMPLETELY PREVENTS any legal redress for a site operator or anyone, for that matter, if the people who shut you down can say their belief was "reasonable." It also allows private action against "foreign infringing sites" OR any site "dedicated to theft of US property."
Taken together: ANY site accessible in the US can be shut down via extrajudicial, PRIVATE action, and NO legal action is possible if the parties responsible can prove their belief was "reasonable."
Wikipedia has many, many copyrighted images on their site. This law will completely apply to them. Especially since they "encourage" users to update pictures and wiki pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You see the AG has no incentive to get it right, content owners have no incentive to get it right and nothing happens if they get it wrong so it will be like shooting fish in a barrel for them and it won't matter if those fish are innocent or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the best you can do to prove me wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same court system that has repeatedly agreed that "someone told me it was true" is all the reasoning needed to make obvious lies NOT libel (see Tabloids V. Anyone).
You don't have to be convicted of a crime for your arrest to be legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Section 104
Which means that the actions taken will be extra-judicial, unless these payment providers (and others) have the balls to question such requests. Hint: in practice, they won't --- unless, possibly, the site in question is a really major one (Google Wallet, for example).
Don't forget that if they themselves ignore such requests, they could be considered to be "aiding infringement" or "enabling circumvention".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because if not, thopse three words can be weaselled into and out of faster than you can say "SOPAdope".
And those words were in the DMCA, as well. And the Patriot Act. And NDAA. Those words mean less than nothing in vague legislation - either actually target the issue or don't touch it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bullshit. By allowing users to post content, Wikipedia is indeed "an Internet site that is used by users within the United States; and primarily designed for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables, or facilitates" copyright infringement, and thus is (according to section 103 of the *current* SOPA bill, "Dedicated to theft of US property".
Any site that enables posting potentially infringing material could be taken down by SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Any site that enables posting could be taken down by SOPA.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Menacing implication?
Interesting choice of words there. It seems to imply that the freedoms they enjoy won't be there tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Menacing implication?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the same time, the MPAA is using their 'creativeamerica' site to put full page ads in newspapers and such that spread propaganda supporting SOPA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly
Taking down your own website = Abuse
/MPAA_insane_troll_logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flashbacks...
I'd also love to know what "corporate interests" Wikipedia is supposed to be protecting with the blackout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, really?
Funny, this coming from a mafia-run organization which bribes Senators and Congressmen into stifling free speech by granting them unchecked authority to effectively shut down websites at a whim. Oh, and as for being a "disservice," they're not ones to talk, seeing as how they tried not so long ago to permanently strip music artists of the rights to their own work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, really?
They're still trying to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, really?
Actually, I mistakened the MPAA for the RIAA in my last post. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse one mafia cartel for another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lame Ar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lame Arse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lame Ar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot calling kettle. Come in Kettle....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed that for ya...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TFTFY...
This is how I read his statement. Now we all know it will harm US websites tremendously as well, but foreign nations better start worrying about what the US is going to do to their internet business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TFTFY...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TFTFY...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because if that was his intention, it is working pretty damn well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody inside the US respects copyright including house representatives and nobody in the world do also.
Even in China, measures trying to contain the internet fail miserably, those news about the train that crashed and killed a lot of people came first from Meibos not the government controlled media and sparked the fury of millions of Chinese and they do there what everybody else in the world already does, and that is replicate content ad infinitum faster than authorities can take it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act
"misinformed, disingenuous... or just lying"
misinformed? Mike you are a nice guy aren't you?
disingenuous? see sentence above.
lying? Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act
If you read stories most media outlets are posting there's absolutely NO mention of the DNS issue. It's all piracy buzzwords about activists, lost revenue, "billions and billions" (sorry, Carl) in money, and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait. How are groups of concerned citizens and companies vocally opposing proposed legislation punishing anybody? That is downright stupid.
Elected officials are supposed represent the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Furthering interests
I can clearly see that shutting down your own site is furthering your own corporate interests, just like not offering movies for rental for 2 months after release for sale is furthering their own corporate interests, the similarities are there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine, I'll Do It!!!
Shall I setup a PayPal account? Perhaps call it BuyBackOurPoliticians@PayPay.com?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine, I'll Do It!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fine, I'll Do It!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine, I'll Do It!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine, I'll Do It!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
like the fourth dimension
I think you've just underlined a vital element of Representative Smith's character. The idea of standing up for other people's rights is simply alien to him; he can talk about it with some effort, but it doesn't occur to him naturally, and he can't really see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: like the fourth dimension
The issue with SOPA is not what the bill says, but what it doesn't say. We're all familiar with the abuse that has occurred under current laws such as the DMCA. We've seen the results of RIAA lawsuits against grandmothers argued before luddite judges. We've seen the degree to which MPAA/RIAA is willing to go to get what they want. What SOPA does not say will be construed by MPAA/RIAA and our judicial system as open to interpretation, at which point whomever as the most money will win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's like saying The Million Man March of the civil rights movement was only a small parade designed to spread misinformation and provide a hyperbole like response to a minor issue of the day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, things were getting better right?
Thing is, labeling this a gimmick is a way Smith hopes to minimize its effect. Pity it won't work. Free publicity is free publicity. Might even cause a small increase in traffic to Wikipedia in the morning just to see it. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can anybody say that a law that targets things that are outside their jurisdiciton will not affect locals?
The simple answer is that he is at best being stupid or at worst lying through his teeth, because the mechanism that will be used is to beat local business to do something that otherwise they wouldn't.
No matter how he tries to dress that pile of shite, it is a law designed to harm local business so they comply with orders from other people.
SOPA tries to force others to cooperate with a tiny fraction of the entire market for the benefit of that few at the expense of everybody else inside that system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He can easily be both. In fact, I think he's proved as much over the past several weeks and, if this is any indication, he ain't done yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lamar Smith: "Wikipedia should shut up because we haven't come for them yet!"
First they came for "foreign websites dedicated to infringement..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I Reject Your Reality & Substitute My Own
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First they came...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call for all coders to start a race to develop a distribute P2P fileshare system that has and embedded webserver that replicates the Pirate Bay in every computer installed, it only takes 5Gigabytes.
That way they be forced to sue normal people again and that will bring them right back where they started.
Not to mention it will show everybody why those laws are bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_servers
Lets call it #Operation Clone Wars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
thanks honestly, this made my night....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call for all coders ...
That's an interesting idea, and yes, I'm a "coder" (FYI, I advocate boycotting *AAs; I don't "pirate").
Over the decades I've been online, I've seen calls from others to fork the net into undernet, othernet, darknet, et al. But this sort of tool would run as just another "service" (daemon), a la bind, sshd, finger, portmap, ... on every computer. That's just damned near sublime. No need to fork the net. Just rip the damned thing back out of the hands of those who're trying to steal it from us, and carry on as it should.
I like it.
[btw, Thanks Mike!]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is like saying, we will beat you guys over here and the other guy over there will feel it all, but don't worry you want be affected only that guy over there that we can't reach will feel the pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are all search engines locate in the US? nope.
Are all financial institutions located in the US? nope.
Are all other countries onboard with this crazy stuff? nope.
How this will work? really, no seriously how this will work out?
Most probably American business will be undercut by global players, oh that will be just priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or they can just bully other countries into signing one-sided extradition treaties. Respecting other nations' sovereignties is not very high on the USA's todo list at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're Scared
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lamar has my respect
Also, he's got balls the size of kumquats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm surprised Lamar Smith can even speak...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2552 News Articles about Blackout
It remains to be seen whether the pro SOPA/PIPA monopolists or the anti SOPA/PIPA let the market work factions will benefit the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POOP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POOP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TD FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet it's OK for established corporations to spend whatever they want on political ads and that's not an abuse of their freedoms, that's free speech. Yet, the moment someone does it in a way that challenges government established monopolists, it's an abuse of freedoms. The double standard here never ceases to amaze me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe society needs to split
There are a lot of people who understand the damage this badly drafted legislation can do to the future. There are some who seem to have no clue. Like those drafting it.
We need a way to split the world. Put walls up that keep these folk out of our lives.
Now how do we do that!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe society needs to split
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Credibility Abroad - Foreign Policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Credibility Abroad - Foreign Policy
Actions will speak vastly more than minor words from now on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA skews facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blackout Started
Wikipedia is already blacked out I see. This was done by the vote of the users where over 99% agreed.
First they come for the infringing sites. You do nothing because they infringe.
Then they come for sites like DaJaz1 and OnSmash. They must be bad you think and do nothing.
Then they come for site that annoy them. Again you do nothing.
Then they come for you but... No one is left to help you.
Fight Censorship while you still can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia still a charity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia still a charity?
News flash: blacking out your site in protest is not "lobbying."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia still a charity?
What are you talking about? Wikipedia is registered as a 501(c)(3) organization (I believe) and can absolutely engage in lobbying. There are spending limits imposed by the IRS for such activities, but I wouldn't think Wikipedia blacking out their own page would be considered such an expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wikipedia still a charity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wikipedia still a charity?
False. USA Non-profits are not allowed to endorse political CANDIDATES. They are allowed to advocate on issues.
Wikipedia would not be allowed to say, "Vote Against Senator Lamar Smith, he's for SOPA" but they are allowed to marshal resources to oppose SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lamar Smith: "I reject reality and substitute my own!"
Sorry, Myth Busters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it is.
Join our FB group to hold these people accountable:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/imprisonllamarsmith/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money -> Mouth
Plausible? If not, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money -> Mouth
By assuming the possible legal bills for Wikipedia, Lamar would be exposing himself to risk SOPA or PIPA were used unfairly against wikipedia as we know it today. This is what you assumed, and why you want to challenge him as you do.
However, he Lamar also exposes himself to the risk if wikipedia DID actually begin to engage directly in copyright violations, or the sale of counterfeit items. Since wikipedia could (but wouldn't) do that, and it is out of the control of Lamar, he should not assume the risk. It's not a fair corner to paint him in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pot calling kettle black" much, MPAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Black mark for Texas
With all due respect, Mr Smith himself does not understand the ramifications of the legislation that he has introduced. His very own campaign website had to be radically changed, due to copyrighted images being used without permission.
In addition he accepted almost twice the amount of campaign contributions from Movie/TV/Entertainment lobbyist groups/businesses, as his fellow lawmakers in 2010. I am further enraged, that he refuses to listen to the very residents of his state, and plans on continuing to fight for a flawed bill.
I'm sorry, but it is clear that Congressman Smith is only interested in keeping the businesses that have kept him in office, for 26 years, happy above and beyond eroding already damaged civil liberties, in the name of protecting business, over the right of individuals.
It is precisely this type of arrogant and misguided decision making, that prompted the framers of our constitution, to stand up to tyranny and adopt laws protecting the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
SOPA PIPA cannot work. Clearly the supporters don't understand the impact of the laws themselves. This needs to be identified for what it really is, in clear terms: THE SANCTIONED CENSORING AND REGULATION of the Internet in violation of free speech.
The reasoning behind the bill is much less important than the end result. Compelling arguments can always be made, but liberties once lost, are hard fought to be won again.
Shame on you, Congressman Smith and shame on us in the state of Texas for continuing to vote for ludicrous politicians like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is diligent?
To establish an environment of cold one must perform work in order to remove heat. Just as cold is the absence of heat, oppression is the absence of liberty and to establish such an environment requires effort to remove such liberty. If not for constant legislation of the purported need for balance and order, the lethargic representative would be all that is required to sustain the free world. Problems in the U.S. are historically small these days, and yet it is the busy-body, read diligent career politician or mere government employee who will spend endless amounts of time and the money of others to contrive a better mouse trap. Left to their own devices an obsessive compulsive will always find something to do with themselves. The gamma worker will direct their efforts to a meaningless, endless pursuit; content in the process of converting their time into a standard of living. And for every diligent busy-body who is striving to �protect American jobs from foreign criminals�, there are likely as many who are working against those efforts. Now we have a government resembling a Rube Goldberg contraption and the builders are busier annexing now than ever. It is a bureaucratic singularity amassing departments and laws at an ever increasing rate to maintain �stability �within an ever growing civilization. It is the war of the busy-bodies where everyone else being the casualties. And when we can no longer ingest the touts of justification this juggernaut we call the Federal government spews at us, they will plead that it�s only a morsel, a mere sliver. Just say no to federal representative action should be the people�s slogan. But only the busy-bodies are paying attention and their aftermath just moves the herd from one place to the next supposedly edging closer to utopia with each progression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzS5rSvZXe8
The truth behind why these big companies responsible for SOPA and PIPA are also responsible for piracy itself is far more insidious than even their outmoded business model.
Hint: can you say, do as I say so I can crush you under heel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]