Wikipedia protest against proposed US laws

[Schnellzug]

It says this on Wikipedia today. is this some kind of hack, or some kind of gimmick?

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate—that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout

Seems a little petulant to me, but then, I don't really understand much about the Internet.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I wish it would black out forever!

 

[TGVDUDE]

Lucky I have no essays due lol :P

 

[Hydro]

I'm sure I can live without outdated, inaccurate information for one day.

 

[yorkie]

The US must not be allowed to get away with introducing draconian laws without a fight.

I'm sure I can live without outdated, inaccurate information for one day.

And you have a better alternative?

 

[Nym]

The US must not be allowed to get away with introducing draconian laws without a fight.

And you have a better alternative?

Proper research using search engines and books rather than defaulting everything to wikipedia?

If someone references wikipedia in our school it's treated as a null reference and you loose marks for it, it should only be used as a pointer to published information.

 

[PR1Berske]

This is a very serious story, and I support Wikipedia fully

SOPA, as proposed, would change the Internet forever. Services which COULD provide access to copyright infrigement would be shut down - YouTube, Wikipedia, you name it. If there's any means by which a site could be considered a conduit to "piracy", it is under threat.

This sort of legislation, coupled with existing extradition laws (see http://www.contactmusic.com/news/uk-student-ordered-extradited-to-us-for-alleged-piracy_1284304) mean a stepchange in the way in which the Internet is governed

 

[Clip]

I'm sure I can live without outdated, inaccurate information for one day.

Im sure I read that quote in the paper today


As the poster above me has said - this is some very serious stuff that may be passed in the US and they also want the same thing over here so if I were you Id be very wary about this sort of thing.

More so that yet again media conglomorates are getting their way with government - which can never be good.

 

[PR1Berske]

Just to help a bit more:


"Under the proposed legislation, it would be illegal for us (or you) to link to any website – any website at all, including community-driven behemoths like YouTube, Flickr, Blogspot or WordPress – without checking first that nothing on that site infringes copyright. And we’d have to review those sites continually after a link was made.

Under these Acts, every person making a link to such a site would have to check the millions of other pages on that site to ensure that nobody, anywhere, is breaching copyright. Even search results would be covered under the proposed law. And if a website like ours were to be prosecuted for linking to another site where copyrighted material was hosted, our domain could be confiscated and our IP address added to a USA-wide blacklist, even though we are UK-based and have servers hosted outside the USA – all this without legal process."

 

[Nonsense]

I'm sure I can live without outdated, inaccurate information for one day.

It is what it is, a user generated reference site. If you come across outdated or inaccurate information on there, whats stopping you from correcting it? Its not all about what you can take, you can contribute if you think you know better.

At least its referenced and peer reviewed. You could spend months sifting through google to find references to papers that you need to track down and read, just so you can extract one small piece of information, that may itself been invalidated or superceded by the time you've found it. Or would you prefer a single truth source that you know is infallible, controlled centrally by the US Government or papal perhaps?

 

[Oswyntail]

Im sure I read that quote in the paper today


As the poster above me has said - this is some very serious stuff that may be passed in the US and they also want the same thing over here so if I were you Id be very wary about this sort of thing.

More so that yet again media conglomorates are getting their way with government - which can never be good.

The trouble with SOPA is that it raises questions that no one has yet answered, and the opposition to it is running along anti-megacorps lines. Legislation IS needed, not so much to protect the big companies seeking to milk their cash cows for longer, but the small guys, such as poets whose only income comes from internet published work.
Internet regulation is also dividing people, waging (apparently) techno-hippies (free and unregulated) against mega-corps (control everything). Would the "internet should be allowed to run free" set object to live streamed videos of children being raped and murdered? No? So where does the line get drawn and by whom? Some suggest that the laws of each country are sufficient, but I would suggest that (eg) calls to massacre all Israelis might have a different status in the UK from that in Iran.
Users of the internet need to grow up and start thinking of the legal and moral structures needed for it to operate. SOPA went too far in one direction (I think it has now been shelved) but that does not mean we can turn a blind eye to what is needed.

 

[Clip]

The trouble with SOPA is that it raises questions that no one has yet answered, and the opposition to it is running along anti-megacorps lines. Legislation IS needed, not so much to protect the big companies seeking to milk their cash cows for longer, but the small guys, such as poets whose only income comes from internet published work.
Internet regulation is also dividing people, waging (apparently) techno-hippies (free and unregulated) against mega-corps (control everything). Would the "internet should be allowed to run free" set object to live streamed videos of children being raped and murdered? No? So where does the line get drawn and by whom? Some suggest that the laws of each country are sufficient, but I would suggest that (eg) calls to massacre all Israelis might have a different status in the UK from that in Iran.
Users of the internet need to grow up and start thinking of the legal and moral structures needed for it to operate. SOPA went too far in one direction (I think it has now been shelved) but that does not mean we can turn a blind eye to what is needed.

This is an irrelevant and rather daily mail scare story really. Doesnt matter the medium - videos and pictures will always be around of such vile acts and most of it is on the so called 'hidden web' anyway so its a moot point trying to use it in the arguement for this bill.


Who says we need moral structures? What may be offensive to you may not be offensive to me - so because of your offense taken to something your saying that I should then be prevented from browsing it ? Not on your life.


Piracy has always been a problem through the years and the big media groups have messed up each and every step to try and combat it - from pathetic DRM measures to charging prices that were artificially high in the first place - which kind of breeds piracy in itself.

 

[Schnellzug]

the curious thing is that this (either the Wiki incident or this proposed legislation) doesn't seem to have received very much coverage in the mainstream media. You might have thought that this would be rather a big thing because of the potential ramifications. There is a story on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-16590585 , although it's filed away under the technology department and not a lead story. I wonder if, if the papers or TV were threatened with such a thing, they'd be shouting it from the rofotops? Is it because the mainstream media would be quite pleased to see online soruces of information restrained, so people would have to turn to them, or just because they don't understand and aren't really interested?

 

[starrymarkb]

The trouble with SOPA is that it raises questions that no one has yet answered, and the opposition to it is running along anti-megacorps lines. Legislation IS needed, not so much to protect the big companies seeking to milk their cash cows for longer, but the small guys, such as poets whose only income comes from internet published work.

Revision3 are an internet TV station that produces it's own content and are strongly against SOPA. In the early days they distributed this content using their own BitTorrent tracker.

A couple of years ago they came under a massive DDoS attack from a single IP range which shut down their systems. This was traced to a company that is under contract to the movie industry (It listed the studios as it's main clients on the co's website). They were looking for BitTorrent trackers that were sharing large amounts of video (as obviously BitTorrent is only used for piracy and had no legal uses whatsoever :roll, it didn't matter that the content was either their own, or they had the full rights to distribute it...

With decreasing bandwidth costs Rev3 have now switched to streaming and have retired the torrent server...

So having been the victim of a spurious copyright claim they are very much against.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of wikipedia itself, I really don't get the attitude some people have against it. Yes be careful when using it. But if you basically use it as a search tool to find relevant links and sources, then what is the problem?

In terms of SOPA, I am glad others have explained the importance of opposing it. America should not be allowed to control the internet. Especially not by attacking how the internet works at its very core (part of the bill was to block DNS requests - although I now understand that has been removed). Yes there needs to be some control, but the way it is done now (aka if any offending material is found it is reported and then removed) is the best way of dealing with it IMO. There is simply no way you can possibly go through every link to ensure there is no offending material on there to ensure your site will not be blocked by the SOPA bill.

 

[90019]

If someone references wikipedia in our school it's treated as a null reference and you loose marks for it, it should only be used as a pointer to published information.

You never reference directly from Wikipedia, but it is a very useful tool for finding multiple other sources to reference in one place.

 

[sprite]

One thing I fear more than SOPA is Protect IP. It is just as far reaching but is being kept even more quiet than SOPA and the "official" releases about it try to paint it as a less radical bill. BOTH PIP and SOPA are very dangerous bills - do we want to give corperations known to be greedy, known to scapegoat anyone they can to have the power to pull any website they want?
It is not just the US government who will have this power, but the media companies themselves will have it too. If on this site we discussed the latest hollywood blockbuster, and posted an image of the poster for it - the site could be pulled from under our feet. That is how far reaching these two bills are.

If I wasn't in the middle of important exams I would be drafting a letter to my MPs (Home and Term Time) to attempt to get them to pressure the UK Government to lobby the US to stop these. I would recomend anyone with an interest in keeping the internet "free" of corperate control, to do this.

 

[SS4]

I have nothing to add on top of PR1Bezerk's excellent posts. I have no doubt that mainstream media, especially Murdoch's lot, would like to give this as little coverage as possible and I believe a lot of people in Britain and the rest of the world (Sweden possible an exception?) understand the ramifications of it.

Just to add it is not just Wikipedia that is proposing a blackout. Reddit and XDA amongst others are joining in but wiki are thr most high profile.

 

[trentside]

Murdoch is, I believe, a keen supporter of this bill. Let's not forget his corporation owns Fox who produce a huge number of movies and television shows.

These bills are clearly dangerous, and were they to be passed into law (the White House has indicated it is against these, so there is potential for presidential veto were these to be passed on the Hill) I'd imagine it wouldn't take long before a Supreme Court challenge. An aspect to remember is that the members of Congress promoting these bills will be in the pay of the corporations most in favour of these - that's how it works in the US.

 

[Oswyntail]

This is an irrelevant and rather daily mail scare story really. Doesnt matter the medium - videos and pictures will always be around of such vile acts and most of it is on the so called 'hidden web' anyway so its a moot point trying to use it in the arguement for this bill.

Not at all irrelevant - and, yes, the illustration was deliberately shocking and extreme. Much of the argument has been along the lines of "the internet should (can) not be regulated", "regulation is against freedom of speech". Bur most would agree that extreme material such as I postulated is unacceptable. So, who draws the lines, and where?

Who says we need moral structures? What may be offensive to you may not be offensive to me - so because of your offense taken to something your saying that I should then be prevented from browsing it ? Not on your life.

Totally agree, and that statement itself is a moral structure of the kind I believe needs stating. Morality is not solely about taking offence, nor about a restrictive code, put possibly about universal values

Piracy has always been a problem through the years and the big media groups have messed up each and every step to try and combat it - from pathetic DRM measures to charging prices that were artificially high in the first place - which kind of breeds piracy in itself.

But it is still a problem, and, though we should not leave the solution up to mega-corps, a solution should still be sought.

 

[SS4]

Murdoch is, I believe, a keen supporter of this bill. Let's not forget his corporation owns Fox who produce a huge number of movies and television shows.

These bills are clearly dangerous, and were they to be passed into law (the White House has indicated it is against these, so there is potential for presidential veto were these to be passed on the Hill) I'd imagine it wouldn't take long before a Supreme Court challenge. An aspect to remember is that the members of Congress promoting these bills will be in the pay of the corporations most in favour of these - that's how it works in the US.

So is godaddy, the domain name registrar that fooled nobody with it's half-hearted turnaround when it was realised they'd lose business. Noticed how they've had more ads on recently? That's because US hosted firms are leaving en masse.

 

[Clip]

Not at all irrelevant - and, yes, the illustration was deliberately shocking and extreme. Much of the argument has been along the lines of "the internet should (can) not be regulated", "regulation is against freedom of speech". Bur most would agree that extreme material such as I postulated is unacceptable. So, who draws the lines, and where?
.

Did you voice the same outrage when VHS and then DVD and then BLU ray came along? Why not bin them as this sort of material can and is distributed on these formats to so why not outlaw them also - which is what your arguement on clamping down on the web is basically saying. Same thing, different medium - do you still apply your rules to it?

Totally agree, and that statement itself is a moral structure of the kind I believe needs stating. Morality is not solely about taking offence, nor about a restrictive code, put possibly about universal values
.

Universal values? What are they then? everyone the same the world over are they? No I didnt think so, so because we are culturally different the world over who are you to then try and push your morals and your values onto someone else who maybe doesnt share them?

But it is still a problem, and, though we should not leave the solution up to mega-corps, a solution should still be sought.

A solution? There is no solution. You try and clamp down on this on the known web and as i already stated it goes underground. Its always been that way and there is nothing that you , me the big bad media corps or any government can do about it. Bad things happen due to bad people in the world. Its not nice. I dont condone it. I do know that you cannot stop it from happenning. I also know that by trying to supress the minority you are actually supress the majority - which is what this bill is going to do.

 

[SS4]

I also know that by trying to supress the minority you are actually supress the majority - which is what this bill is going to do.

SOPA and PIPA aren't even pretending to go after the minority.
The media giants have failed miserably to crack down on piracy by their own means and so now they are using their influence on Congress (which, if the Occupy movement is anything to go by, is believed by Americans to be excessive) to force site admins to pro-actively search and remove posts which may infringe copyright - there is no due process here, copyright holders do not need to prove that the post breaches copyright and in the real world who is going to have the money to defend themselves against these tossers*?

* Actual word censored

 

[Clip]

SOPA and PIPA aren't even pretending to go after the minority.
The media giants have failed miserably to crack down on piracy by their own means and so now they are using their influence on Congress (which, if the Occupy movement is anything to go by, is believed by Americans to be excessive) to force site admins to pro-actively search and remove posts which may infringe copyright - there is no due process here, copyright holders do not need to prove that the post breaches copyright and in the real world who is going to have the money to defend themselves against these tossers*?

* Actual word censored

Oh I totally agree with all that - My sentence was in a reply to the rather outlandish claims made earlier with regards to violent content on the web.

 

[Schnellzug]

I have nothing to add on top of PR1Bezerk's excellent posts. I have no doubt that mainstream media, especially Murdoch's lot, would like to give this as little coverage as possible .

the Great Man was quoted in the (still rather hidden away) BBC story as saying, or rather Tweeting, "So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery."
Since the mighty NewsCorp to a large extent dictates to the U.S. Govt., you can smell the hypocrisy from several miles away, can't you.



* Oh no! I also see that

Wikipedia joins other sites, including the Cheezburger Network, in planning to go offline

.
However will I get through the day??

 

[Hydro]

The Cheezburger network is blacking out? This has taken a disturbing turn for the worst. More so.

 

[SS4]

the Great Man was quoted in the (still rather hidden away) BBC story as saying, or rather Tweeting, "So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery."
Since the mighty NewsCorp to a large extent dictates to the U.S. Govt., you can smell the hypocrisy from several miles away, can't you.



* Oh no! I also see that .
However will I get through the day??

The pot calling the kettle black springs to mind :cry:

 

[Eagle]

I'm sure I can live without outdated, inaccurate information for one day.

:x If you see a mistake, fix it. That's the whole point of a wiki.

 

[Schnellzug]

I think that's the strength and the weakness with Wiki; anyone can edit it, but is there any process for verifying information? Mightn't it be just as easy to replace accurate information with inaccurate information? That's why it gets the reputation for sometimes not being 100% reliable. it's a doubel-edged sword.

 

[Eagle]

I think that's the strength and the weakness with Wiki; anyone can edit it, but is there any process for verifying information? Mightn't it be just as easy to replace accurate information with inaccurate information? That's why it gets the reputation for sometimes not being 100% reliable. it's a doubel-edged sword.

Well add citations then. The little blue numbers make all the difference.