Welcome to the Fest
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Darqcyde
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11920
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:17 pm Post subject: Wikipedia blackout in protest of SOPA |
 |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative
| wiki wrote: | This is a project page to determine what action is required on the part of the Wikipedia community regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and our response to it (if any). Jimbo Wales asked for community input on a possible database lock, similar to what the Italian Wikipedia did in October 2011 in response to a proposed bill in the Parliament of Italy. Although opinion is divided on the issue, there appears to be broad support that some form of response is needed. This is a workshop to explore various alternatives.
The Wikimedia Foundation is going to support whatever action the community decides to take. The community has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it informed as events unfold: to that end, the Wikimedia Foundation will use this page as a central place to post information. If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here.
Voice your support or opposition to the proposals by voting. You may also display a userbox on your userpage with the {{SOPA}} template.
Updates on SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN
January 16, 2012 - Mike Masnick from TechDirt explains the current status of SOPA and PIPA:
Issa's office put out a press release Friday night with Cantor's comments (I can pass along the press release if you'd like). Others have confirmed that Cantor has said that and that he's "serious" about not bringing it to the floor any time soon, though he has not made a public statement.
As for PIPA... Just yesterday, Reid reiterated his plans to bring the bill to the floor, saying that it was important for "jobs" even as he admitted that the "recent" concerns brought up by "Google & Facebook" are legitimate and he's worried about the impact the bill will have on the internet. But, he also claimed, he's working with Dianne Feinstein to sort out all the problems, since she represents both Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Kinda crazy since Feinstein, just weeks ago, insisted that no one in tech was upset about the bill...
The New York Times has more on last week's developments in the SOPA and PIPA debate. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
January 14, 2012 - The official Whitehouse response to SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN recognizes that piracy and rogue sites pose a risk to the U.S. economy. The Administration will only support legislation that avoids censorship of legal activity, allows innovation, and does not damage the architecture of the internet. The statement calls for stakeholders to provide input on new legislation to prevent and prosecute piracy originating outside of the U.S. - Slaporte (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Input. As the foremost user generated web site in the world, Wikipedia should provide Congress with ideas, recommendations and feedback. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/
https://twitter.com/oadrake |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Darqcyde
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11920
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also: | wiki wrote: | What will be shown on the blackout page?
Information given will include a brief description of the issue, with links that allow users to identify members of their local congressional delegation and provide sample text that a user may send to oppose the bill. The Wikimedia Foundation will support the development of the necessary software for this purpose. The purpose of this action is to capture media attention and drive a significant volume of telephone calls from constituents.
|
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/
https://twitter.com/oadrake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get it. What do they think the United States will accomplish, if any, with this act? The United States does not own the internet. Patented perhaps by the US military who created it, but it's not owned - as far as I'm concerned - by that same branch of people, so it's essentially public domain now. If the government of the US think they can remove things from the internet at will, they're even more arrogant and ignorant than we thought.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darqcyde
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11920
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mini J
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 1184
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | I don't get it. What do they think the United States will accomplish, if any, with this act? The United States does not own the internet. Patented perhaps by the US military who created it, but it's not owned - as far as I'm concerned - by that same branch of people, so it's essentially public domain now. If the government of the US think they can remove things from the internet at will, they're even more arrogant and ignorant than we thought. |
What you are missing is that, while it is true the US doesn't "own" the internet, a very significant amount of web traffic either originates or passes through the US. This legislation could force the companies that provide both the hosting and the backbone and routers to block any site that has an infringement allegation levelled against it. That's the worst-case scenario, and doesn't rely on the US "owning" anything.
_________________
Who needs a signature? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Joined: 15 Aug 2006
Posts: 2178
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Which would result in multiple, massive lawsuits, most of which the US government would lose. It would be extremely inpractical to not only pass this law but then also think it would fly without objection. Then there's the issue of jurisdiction, and how countless servers in the US are not sole property of the US, concerns about patents, copyright (which is ironic), etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
_________________
"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darqcyde
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 11920
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WheelsOfConfusion
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 14388
Location: Unknown Kaddath
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Then?
THEN?
LESS THEN??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3352
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Which would result in multiple, massive lawsuits, most of which the US government would lose. . |
Gosh...thats sure stopped them before.
Its like you HAVEN'T spent the past decade realizing that the U.S. govmt does what it wants and enforces its will via a military superior to probably any 5 left on the planet combined.
Edit: here, ill break it down further.
They'll get sued, they'll lose in lower courts, right up until they hit the supreme court which is full of shills for big business at the moment and the supreme court will say "OKIE DOKIE THIS IS JUST FINE" and everyone else will be told to go piss up a rope.
And thats assuming they dont bankrupt the people suing them via dragging the process out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lasairfiona
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9718
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, will this hurt wiki or reddit? Will it actually get people pissed off?
I am not sure and yes <- my prediction.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yorick
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 12292
Location: Laganglia
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm already pissed off, as it means I have to change my plans for Wednesday. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thy Brilliance
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3661
Location: Relative
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are you people freaking out about?
Wikipedia has a shit ton of mirrors, and besides, you could have downloaded the archive files at any point in time if you were worried.
And reddit isn't as great as it claims to be. Any decently programmed aggregator of news and content can easily replace it. Does no one use RSS feeds? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yorick
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 12292
Location: Laganglia
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thy Brilliance wrote: | | you could have downloaded the archive files at any point in time if you were worried. |
archive files for something you haven't looked up yet? how does that work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thy Brilliance
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3661
Location: Relative
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yorick wrote: | | Thy Brilliance wrote: | | you could have downloaded the archive files at any point in time if you were worried. |
archive files for something you haven't looked up yet? how does that work? |
http://dumps.wikimedia.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CTrees
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Which would result in multiple, massive lawsuits, most of which the US government would lose. |
Okay, lawsuits against the US government? From whom?
-From small website owners or bloggers? That fight, which would need to pass the circuit courts and hit the SCOTUS, would last years, have an extremely low chance of success, would not result in compensation of any sort, and would be too expensive for any of the aggrieved to bring in the first place.
-From large website owners? The Google/FB/ESPN/media provider/etc. types aren't going to be hit. It just won't happen. If it did, well, those guys actually have the guns to make that fight reasonable, but they'll need to be hit, first. In those unlikely circumstances, argued up to the SCOTUS, SOPA could be killed. I'd actually bet on the industry lawyers, in that battle. However, it'd be more likely they'd just toss some extra coin to their pet legislators and get it repealed.
-From anyone (from individual bloggers up to foreign governments) outside the US? Do you... do you think this would affect US policy? Lawsuits? We routinely ignore the ICC - it's not news, it's just an assumed response. Anything less, like the civil suits this would need to be? That has about as much chance of affecting anything as a fart in a hurricane.
-From anyone, against the various interested businesses involved? Well, that's not a lawsuit against the US government, and look at the suits against the RIAA that already go on. Yeah, fantastic, and they may (rarely) even pay off (though the big ones, the RICO actions and the like, don't). However... not a one of those has affected the laws in any way, and they wouldn't affect SOPA, either.
If SOPA is passed, it will only die legislatively, and that doesn't usually happen. It'll be much harder to kill, even if it's used in massively unpopular ways, if it gets passed the first time.
| Quote: | | It would be extremely inpractical to not only pass this law but then also think it would fly without objection. |
Oh, the US has passed things at least as unpleasant and unpopular as SOPA before, and done it fairly easily. Yeah, there would be a ton of objection to its use, but that might not matter. See again how many politicians are bought and paid for by the businesses who want SOPA.
| Quote: | | Then there's the issue of jurisdiction, and how countless servers in the US are not sole property of the US |
Bolded for the important point. Servers operating in the US, like the majority of the backbone of the Internet, will be affected. Companies and countries could move them outside the US, but that's extraordinarily expensive, and would take quite a lot of time. That timer will not start until SOPA has not only passed, but has been used, has been fought (with the fights at least going until they show a low chance of success), and proven itself worth the cost and time. We're talking years. And no, there is not a chance in hell of the US government paying one red cent in penalties to anyone over all this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tl;dr: SOPA, if passed, will be very, very bad news for quite awhile, for people across the globe.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
