Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA

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

As more and more internet operations recognize the horrors of SOPA, they’re stepping up to do stuff about it. The latest is that Wikipedia is considering a blackout on the site in protest — a move that might actually catch Congress’ attention because people in Congress actually use Wikipedia all the time. There’s a discussion on the site concerning whether or not Wikipedia should make this move, and it’s not a bad time to add your thoughts to the discussion. Most of the discussion so far appears to be in favor, but more thoughts can only help. The idea is to model this on the rather powerful message that was sent back in October when Wikipedia blocked access to its Italian version in protest of a new wiretapping law.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: wikia, wikipedia

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
176 Comments
E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: Re:

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

If you were to only block out Congress, then they can write it off as no one outside the Wikipedia community and Congress would have know it happened.

Just John (profile) says:

Re: Re: Woah, woah..

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

In other words, blocking the world is useless because their voice will not be heard. On the other hand, blocking their constituents would have the potential to bring about more public backlash and cause them to rethink what they are doing, since they are going to be up for re-election at some point.

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..

it absolutely does matter.
consider the mid to late 80’s where apartheid is concerned and think back to the public demonstrations in europe and (to a lesser extent) the U.S.

between U.S. higher education schools divesting as a result of protests and the large global number of corporations cutting ties with south africa, its economy started to tank which in part, brought about the end of apartheid.

wikipedia blocking the world brings attention to the subject in the same way as protests and divestiture brought global attention to apartheid.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Woah, woah..

The legislation is of vital importance to those of us outside the United States as well. So a universal shut down in protest would be preferable. There won’t be mere flow on but damage to the rest of the world as a result of this. (Provided anyone in Congress can remember there is a world out there as well a an America outside of DC).
By all means get ahead of the game. It may be necessary as it appears more and more that the game is rigged and the outcome bought and paid for from the lowliest page in Congress to the White House.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Woah, woah..

how about we just block wikipedia to the USA.

SOPA and PROTECT IP will certainly harm U.S. citizens and businesses, but it will harm the rest of the world even more. They are the ones who have to worry the most about their websites being taken down, globally, because of one U.S. law.

So, while I understand the sentiment, taking down Wikipedia worldwide is absolutely the best thing to do, if your aim is to raise consciousness about the bills.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Woah, woah..

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

I’m sure that will go over great in DC, and will undoubtedly win you some new influence and friends.

Definitely a real plus for the tech community…

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Woah, woah..

Troll harder, AC.

SOPA has the potential of doing a lot of irreparable damage to the internet as we know it today. Because ANY site that allows user generated content could be taken down under this.
That means youtube, blogger, reddit, digg, vimeo, justin.tv, ustream, liveleak, wikipedia, wikihow, etc, are all under attack.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Woah, woah..

While perhaps these sites will not be taken down, though I doubt they will not be attacked at all, It would stop a new yooutube, or a new wikipedia from coming up. From the bill, it would be easy for someone to get these sites shut down untill proven innocent, which isn’t as clear cut an issue as you likely think it is.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Woah, woah..

Oh and why must you lie and claim that SOPA will not be (ab)used in this way?
Do you also believe that the DMCA was never abused?

And what about sites that come next? Do you think that innovation stops with the sites I mentioned? Right now, in someone’s garage, someone is working on the next Google, but will it have an existence? Because this law will lay down a minefield for web development. Walking on eggshells is not helpful when you want to innovate.

Dwayne (profile) says:

Re: Woah, woah..

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

You know what a more effective blackout option would be? Google. If Google did a blackout to raise SOPA awareness, could you imagine or Facebook? Imagine all 3 blacking out at the same time.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

DO IT, DO IT NOW!!!!

Screw the discussions, this is a perfect idea! My friends like Wikipedia, but they ignore all the SOPA stuff I post on Facebook. One of my friend thinks it’s made up just because it’s not on TV news and this is the Internet. I try to explain why it’s not on TV news, but no one listens!

Not just Wikipedia, EVERY site on the net, should do it!

Anonymous Coward says:

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

Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view (NPOV) and to not be a soapbox or means of promotion (NOTADVOCACY).

To blank out Wikipedia to oppose SOPA/PIPA is pretty clearly in opposition to these principles of the site. The trouble is that should this legislation pass, Wikipedia may face a threat to its continued existence. This is why I’m torn; it’s a choice between sticking to one’s principles and risking death, or compromising one’s principles to survive – which risks a slippery slope to full blown advocacy.

As one comment on the discussion states:

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

If there is a blanking of Wikipedia, it will have to be justified against the NPOV and NOTADVOCACY principles, and that would likely have to be done through a “this is a special case, because it endangers our very existence” argument.

I don’t think I should have to point out the similarities between a slippery slope that starts with “Oh, we’re only censoring this one special case,” and one that starts with “Oh, we’re only advocating this once special case,” but…

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re:

I’d rather see Wikipedia compromise its principles to send a strong message to the world about government censorship than see it do nothing just to avoid “ruffling feathers”.

I fail to see how this is compromising its principles, anyway. The content of the site is intended to be presented in an NPOV manner; nobody ever said the site’s administration had to be neutral on matters that could cripple the site.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

My concern was not so much about retaliating to a punch in the face, so much as it was that retaliation may become the response to more minor grievances. But as above, in light of PACT, I’m now satisfied that such a blanking would be sufficiently justified by Wikipedia’s principles, and that with respect to those principles it would be unlikely to lead down a slippery slope.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

Under SOPA it would not be implausible for someone to find something they don’t like and demand a shutdown, fair use be damned.

The fact that you insist on being wilfully ignorant on this possibility demonstrates just what kind of scum-sucking bottom feeder you are. You can’t live without scum.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

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

Of course you would still think it’s alright because Wikipedia would fight back, but it still doesn’t answer the problem: the claim is “crazy ass”, but SOPA only needs to go by the faith of a single individual or group. You’re not answering the issue of the potential shutdown, which sidesteps whatever TOS or due process exists.

At least scum still has a place in the world, to feed scum-sucking bottom feeders like you. Conversely you contribute nothing to the debate but blithely disregard all risks, waiting for the day that the law passes so you can tell us, “BA HA HA HA, DOWN W/ UR INTERNETS. IT’S ALL LAW NOW SO GO POUND SAND.” Nice try, but still fail.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

SOPA definitions of “dedicated to infringement”:

a site that ?is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates copyright infringement.”

Not Wikipedia.

a site where ?the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute? copyright infringement.

Not Wikipedia.

a site operated ?with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute? copyright infringement, ?as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.?

Not Wikipedia.

Stop LYING about this bill, scumbags.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

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

Your response does nothing to address the concern of a single person or organisation shutting down another website based on dislike or personal agenda. Under SOPA, a judge is not going to go, “Oh, Wikipedia? We all know that’s definitely not an infringement site”. They’re going to demand a full investigation into whether the claim is true, during which Wikipedia will be shut down. This is assuming that the judge actually knows what Wikipedia is; if the judge decides that Wikipedia is, in fact, a site dedicated to infringing, Wikipedia will have to counter that decision, spending more time that the site is offline.

Until you can show why any attempt to shut down Wikipedia would be shot down at the moment of accusation, don’t be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

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

So, no. Your response is no guarantee that Wikipedia is immune from being shut down.

(On another note, I’m beginning to concur with MrWilson’s observation in another thread. These two different snowflakes seem to have a fixation with emphasising and capitalising the word LIAR and its deriatives.)

xebikr (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“SOPA would have no effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims.”

Ha! SOPA is all about bending over for crazy ass claims. It was introduced to congress based almost entirely on crazy assed claims (and “donations”)

Now, shut your sputtering gob, you tit. You scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat, warthog faced buffoon, English bed-wetting type. Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee nosed, malodorous pervert!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Actually he’s quite right. SOPA’s supporters would like to believe that the law won’t be abused, but since the enforcement of SOPA is based primarily on the vested interests and claims of individuals, crazy ass claims will, in fact, be treated in good faith and followed regardless of whether the claims are actually rightful. So SOPA won’t have an effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims; it certainly won’t discourage people from making them.

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

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

The RIAA, MPAA, and other major media conglomerates own copyright law. They’ve had it written, rewritted, redefined, and restructured to protect their corporate interests for as long as I’ve been alive — and a hell of a lot longer before that. The Internet presents the largest challenge to the very notion of copyright to date, and the Big Media companies want that genie back in the bottle serving them instead of out of the bottle serving the general public.

SOPA and PIPA are an attempt to force the genie back in the bottle and transform the Internet from a global communications network that has changed the way people live to just another content delivery platform.

Do you like Tumblr? There’s plenty of Tumblogs dedicated to things that could be considered copyright infringement. The same goes for Blogger, WordPress, and other popular blogging platforms. One call from the Attorney General, and all of Tumblr could be blocked in the entirety of the United States — and numerous legitimate, non-infringing blogs would be blocked as a result. That is censorship, and that is something that SOPA would allow the AG to do were it to become law.

Do you like Twitter? There’s plenty of users who tweet links of all kinds, and God knows how many of those links are infringing on somebody’s copyrights. Under SOPA, the AG makes a call, and all of Twitter is blocked in the US. SOPA allows this, and if you don’t believe me, ask every law scholar, tech expert, and Internet engineer about it.

Would you like the see social networks evolve and change over time? Would you like to see new creative platforms spring up that enable new experiences and new opportunities for Internet users to express themselves? If you do, then that’s a shame, because SOPA would place so much liability on service providers that new services will never see the light of day and existing services will be stifled into oblivion. This is a fact, and everyone who has researched SOPA knows it.

There is no debate on the effects SOPA would have upon the Internet and American society. SOPA representes corporate greed, censorship, and the desire to control the populace through the control of how said populace creates, publishes, and consumes content and information. SOPA is a direct attack on the fundamental backbone of the Internet, the First Amendment, and the American people — and it must be stopped now.

If you can provide a compelling argument backed by facts (with legitimate sources) as to why SOPA won’t do any of those things, then feel free to put the argument forth. Don’t rely on the “but…but…piracy!” argument, though — everyone sees right through it, and it will do you no favors on this site. If your argument is strong enough, you can make it without resorting to insults, paper-thin reasoning, or the bogeyman that is “Teh Evil Pirates”.

If you want to “win” this debate, then man up and bring a rational argument to the table.

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Twitter isn’t dedicated to infringement.

That doesn’t matter. If the RIAA and MPAA…excuse me, the Attorney General concludes that enough users are dedicated to infringing copyrights, SOPA would allow the US Government to block Twitter.

This is a legitimate concern of nearly every critic of the bill, and I have yet to see anyone provide proof that SOPA’s language would not allow the government to do this other than vague and untrustworthy “we won’t do it” promises.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

SOPA definitions of “dedicated to infringement”:

a site that ?is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates copyright infringement.”

Not Twitter.

a site where ?the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute? copyright infringement.

Not Twitter.

a site operated ?with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute? copyright infringement, ?as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.?

Not Twitter.

Stop LYING about this bill, scumbags.

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

a site where ?the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute? copyright infringement.

Twitter doesn’t filter every post for potentially infringing links; I could post a link to Demonoid on my Twitter account, and Twitter won’t do jack about it.

Twitter doesn’t filter links to potentially infringing sites; ergo, Twitter has not taken deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of its service to carry out acts of copyright infringement.

Twitter could be a potential target of SOPA.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

dedicated to infringement

That’s a very slippery and undefined term, and Wikipedia is a big place. We already hear from the trolls here that a music blog who might have posted a copyrighted video amongst all the legit ones deserves no protection, but when people reasonably point out that Wikipedia could fall into the same boat, the same trolls turn around and claim that such a violation wouldn’t be enough to take it down.

So here’s the challenge: What % of content in violation makes a site “dedicated” to infringement?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

SOPA definitions of “dedicated to infringement”:

a site that ?is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates copyright infringement.”

Not Wikipedia.

a site where ?the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute? copyright infringement.

Not Wikipedia.

a site operated ?with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute? copyright infringement, ?as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.?

Not Wikipedia.

Stop LYING about this bill, scumbags.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

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

“What % of content in violation makes a site “dedicated” to infringement?”

All you have states (well copied) is that there needs to be a “high probability” of the use. Doesn’t show if this is needed in one or more instances. So therefore 1 comment/post in a googelplex of comments/posts could be classified as Infringing if shown to be highly likley that that ONE post/comment was infringing.

You also copied “clear expression” is needed. Define clear expression, who decides, what is the fine line between clear and unclear, what equitable guidelines are needed.

And lets not get into “Marketing by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates copyright infringement” [emphasis added] which is so wide open to abuse, entrapment and vagueness that it should not be in any legal text ever.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Your answer to the slippery, indefinite nature of “dedicated to” is to respond with the similarly slippery, indefinite “primarily designed for”.

As for taking deliberate actions to avoid acting, you and I both know that’s impossible to prove or disprove. YouTube takes down content when notified, but under SOPA their lack of preventative measures may or may not trigger that clause. For you to claim otherwise when Viacom is practically salivating over the possibility is disingenuous.

So after all those arguments about how core the violation must be, do you agree that the seizure of Dajaz was wrong? I notice you didn’t include a %. Why not? It must be easy, right?

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

Whether they are dedicated to infringement in your opinion has no weight when it comes to the opinion of other private entities. And remember allowing private entities to do what they want with their own copyright for the good of the US economy *eyeroll* (yes I’m a bully) is the whole basis of this bill.

awww you called me scum. awww your just precious *pats you on top of ya pointy little head*

Chris Mikaitis (profile) says:

no, no, no

Wow… I’m crazy against SOPA, but holding information hostage for a political motive is short-sighted, at best. As was mentioned (infrequently) in the discussion on Wikipedia, this sort of movement could easily dissolve into a Wikipedia blackout for the 99%, gay rights, or immigration, etc… While all (or none) of those may be good causes, access to information should never be held back for any reason.

More information is always better, especially for a public cause like Wikipedia. Contributors may overwhelmingly agree to stop SOPA, but Wikipedia itself must stay neutral.

Take a stand elsewhere.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: no, no, no

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

Maximum impact means hit fast, hit hard then back to normal as if nothing happened. By then the discussion would be so widespread that it would be impossible for Big Media to ignore and then it gets out more to the public.

I’m sure Wikipedia knows this, if nothing else they’re very media savvy.

DO IT!!!

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

The collateral damage that will come from SOPA and/or PIPA is catastrophic to American society. Entire websites could be blocked out because of a few unruly users, and the users who were using services legally could find themselves left out in the cold with no access to their content because the Attorney General declared Tumblr or Facebook or whatever to be a “rogue site”.

This is not a fevered dream or a conspiracy theory — Constitutional scholars have said that SOPA and PIPA represent clear attacks on the First Amendment. Those two bills are tantamount to creating the Great Firewall here in the United States.

If there is a problem with large-scale commercial copyright infringement, the legislature should craft a bill to handle that problem specifically instead of trying to destroy the rights of everyday Americans with an overly-broad law that is most certainly unconstitutional.

The law should be a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The new markup makes the sledgehammer smaller; it doesn’t break it completely. While the new markup does take a couple of the nastier provisions of SOPA out or makes them less nasty, the majority of the bill remains as it was, and there are still numerous problems with SOPA and PIPA as they stand at this very moment.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

Well, for starters, there’s Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

There isn’t one.

OK, then, you’re flat-out saying that ICE was not acting under any legal standard whatsoever when they seized the domains of foreign websites?

I’m not disagreeing, but I somehow doubt this is really your position.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

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

You can claim SOPA/PIPA won’t either, but it will indeed be made more difficult.

Mike Masnick hates that. Piracy must be left alone, right Mike?

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

ICE seized the US domains of pirate sites.

ICE also seized the domain names of numerous sites that weren’t pirate sites — like the blog that was finally given its domain name back after a year’s worth of handwringing from the US government.

If the supporters of SOPA want to target copyright infringement and the sites that are truly “pirate” sites, then they should craft legislation that strikes specifically at those sites with the surgical precision of a scalpel — not legislation that acts as a sledgehammer and breaks everything in its path in order to solve the problem.

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

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

If Dajaz was a pirate site, then why did its owners get the domain back without being charged with a single crime? You’d think if the site was dedicated to commericalized infringement, there’d be massive lawsuits and criminal proceedings under way…and yet, here we are.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

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

Encryption is quite legal and circumventing DRM to enable backups or region free playing of artistic works is very legal where I reside.

And If the US Govt thinks they can stop encryption from occurring they are living in a vast world of rainbow pooping unicorns.

Just because a law is placed on the books does not mean it is enforceable or if it is enforced it better be enforced against ALL (in its own jurisdiction). No fear nor favour remember, or did you flunk legal ethics 101

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

A court is yet to decide whether they are subject to this or not.

And If a US court does decide, the knock on effects for US companies around the world is NOT going to be pretty. Most countries are sick and tired of the “do what we say, not what we do” so therefore A lot of American companies will be subject to local laws (especially consumer laws that they hate) if Roja is decided in this way.

And if you don’t think it will happen, especially with EU in the way it is and supposedly the USA is where all the money is *snort* , you are deluding yourself. None of your companies will be immune anymore since a US court will deem that if a company is registered in some other country, whether on the internet or not, then they are fully subject to that countries laws.

What a shame

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

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

There isn’t one.

It seems that ICE, US Customs, WTO and others disagree with you.

Oh that’s right there is no “cyber” law specifically dedicated to that scary scary world of virtuality and cyberspace called the internet which the USA thinks it owns and must be the moral saviour of.

Anonymous Poster says:

Re: Re:

SOPA goes against lawbreakers.

It also creates new lawbreakers out of situations that occur every day.

Justin Bieber would be a lawbreaker under SOPA – and while I don’t like her or her music, I think she shouldn’t be made a criminal just because the movie and record companies can’t stand the fact that it’s not 1990 any more.

David Evans (profile) says:

Doesn't need to be political...

They just need to have a few people collaborate on a nice, scrupulously factual article about SOPA and it’s implications. The facts themselves are pretty stacked against SOPA. No need to advocate. Standard procedure.

Then, if they want to raise awareness, just briefly redirect many or all links and searches to that article. Or even milder, just front page it. No need to come down on a side of the issue. Just the relatively unbiased statement that SOPA is a very big issue that’s getting ignored.

No need to come down on a side, just raise awareness. SOPA will butter and roast itself if enough people simply become aware of it.

(If someone wants to post this idea over on a Wikipedia page, I’d appreciate it. I don’t know how do use that site, or I’d do it myself.)

elinruby says:

Re: Doesn't need to be political...

I’ve tried. References to DMCA and the Great Firewall of China get removed as off-topic. CDT and EFF analyses get cited as “opinion” then moved to the “opponents” section then removed altogether as non-neutral in their point of view. This topic totally points up the weakness of Wikipedia, which is that any who is for whatever reason determined enough can skew what it says on a given topic.

tsavory (profile) says:

No Need

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

Anonymous Coward says:

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

They can trade their position on the internet today for a short burst of coverage, and find themselves ignored in the future as a biased source.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

Anyways, I think it’s a good idea. But for it to work, we need to let people know that Wikipedia is actually trying to spread the message that ‘This is happening right now, they’re hiding the information from you!’. Wikipedia is where we get our info, what better way for it to do that and defend itself all in one shot. You know, for added fun, ask TVtropes to do it too. Maybe it’ll release a legion of people from their 1000 year lurking or something.

Steven says:

Do This!!

Better yet, make a page that tell people about the SOPA bill. Have it so no one can view any pages in Wiki. They will all redirect to a single page saying something like this:::

Sorry, but this page is being cencerors because of the SOPA bill.

If you would like to continue viewing this page and more like it please contact your congress person and demand they NAY the SOPA bill.

Put a link here so they can learn more about the bill and how it’s killing our freedom and it unconstitutional.

Also give them a link to help them quickly find their congress person to make the process faster.

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

Targeting Crooked Legislators.

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

My impression was that the “sense of the meeting” in the Wikipedia discussion group was broadly in favor of a strike. That’s settled. So the real question is how the strike will be organized. If, after the first day or so, the Wikipedia shutdown were targeted against the ten percent or so of senators and representatives who are particularly corrupt about taking RIAA/MPAA money, and the shutdown notice made particular reference to the relevant senator or congressman, well in that case the pain would be focused where it could do the most good. Such as Rep. Lamar Smith’s district.

This shutdown would be leaky, of course. Anyone who wants to set up a Wikipedia mirror can do so, and the mirror can access Wikipedia from somewhere outside the bounds of the shutdown zone. However, it would be precisely the least educated people who would not know how to do something like this, and who would also have the greatest capacity for political hysteria. People like Tea-Partiers, and Occupy Wall Street types. Ordinary people would be contacting Rep. Smith’s office to scream about how their kids couldn’t do their class projects, and were going to flunk out of school…

Possibly even more effective, in the long run, would be to serve Wikipedia pages through to Rep. Smith’s district normally, but also to provide prominent links, at the start of every Wikipedia page, to pages describing Smith’s campaign contributions from the movie and music industries, and generally making a case of his corruption. With any luck, Smith would flip out, and attempt to get the school systems to ban Wikipedia.

Stonecold says:

Wikipedia is the sixth most visited site in the world. If Wikipedia goes on strike to protest SOPA then that’ll be a major contribution! It’s not like it’ll be gone forever, or even a long time. Come on, sign the petition!
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/wiki_sign/

Now if only Google would go on strike… Google is a major opposer of SOPA, and it’s the most visited site in the world.

alexander wang bags (user link) says:

alexander wang bags

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

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

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