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.

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.”
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.

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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 1:52pm

    I would like to point out that Lamar Smith & MPAA brushing off Wikipedia blackout as just a publicity stunt is in and of itself just a publicity stunt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:34pm

      Re:

      Absolutely it's a publicity stunt. I mean, really, who has ever heard of Wikipedia? Just a few geeks. Nobody important.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Derek Kerton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Forget Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia for a sec...

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 1:53pm

    I have to agree in that I think wikipedia is overplaying their hand here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 1:59pm

      Re:

      I disagree, Wikipedia has already had some success with this. I have seen multiple mentions of SOPA watching mainstream news today thanks to threatening this shutdown. It also has historic precedent that it is effective, it worked quite well in Italy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        ShellMG, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:23pm

        Re: Re:

        Unfortunately most of the media will play outrage against SOPA/PIPA as "pro piracy" people and thieves. NBCUniversal supports it, so dos FOX's Rupert Murdoch, and I'm sure other media heads are staying silent to let others take the heat.

        There is no way the MPAA/RIAA is going to let this go.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Derek Kerton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, but the era of NBC and Rupert being the only communication channel people learn from is waning.

          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?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:24pm

        Re: Re:

        Is Wales going to suggest an alternative or just protest any piracy legislation that is introduced?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Piracy legislation? Where? SOPA isn't "piracy legislation". Heck, The Pirate Bay won't even be affected by it, and The Pirate Bay is well known for being the biggest piracy site on the planet.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I'm sorry, what? He runs an online free encyclopedia. At what point does that obligate him to suggest legislation to benefit unrelated industries?

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:54pm

            Re: 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."

            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!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm sorry, what? He runs an online free encyclopedia.

            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?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Well he is the alternative, he gives things for free and it is able some how to survive in that market and wait for it...thrive despite all odds.

              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?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Here's an alternative: Burn SOPA. Start over.

              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?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:10pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The hell does "lobbying" have to do with "offering alternatives?" Lobbying is done to aim legislation in a favorable direction. If anything (by your definition), Wales should be lobbying to ensure that nothing like SOPA/PIPA ever makes it into committee, much less out of it.

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:36pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Feel free to point out the exact language in the bill that would affect Wikipedia. The exact language.

                Good luck with that.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Oh that is easy the whole bill.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:45pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Did you even read the post?

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:06pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    See?

                    You can't come up with any language in the bill that would affect them.

                    Surprise, surprise.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:20pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      It's right below this comment.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:25pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Well explain how would you touch something that you can't reach?

                      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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:24am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      First they came for the communists,
                      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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Leonidas, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:46pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code;

                  Since Wikipedia relies on user submitted content, it could be viewed as facilitating the commission of criminal violations.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:14pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    See, you had to selectively quote because you couldn't come up with an honest rebuttal.

                    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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:21pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      The only liar I see is you that can't even understand what you posted.

                      "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?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:44pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        No, you fucking idiot.

                        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.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:20pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Lookee, troll, if you have to go to these lengths to find or explain this law to ANYONE, it is a failure, full stop.

                          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.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:51pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Translation:

                          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.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:47pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Ok you want to go there right, so lets go there moron.

                      SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
                      (1) DOMAIN NAME- The term `domain name' has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127) and includes any subdomain designation using such domain name as part of an electronic address on the Internet to identify a unique online location.

                      (2) DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM SERVER- The term `domain name system server' means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name.

                      (3) DOMESTIC DOMAIN NAME- The term `domestic domain name' means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.

                      (4) DOMESTIC INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `domestic Internet Protocol address' means an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States.

                      (5) DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE- The term `domestic Internet site' means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.

                      (6) FOREIGN DOMAIN NAME- The term `foreign domain name' means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name.

                      (7) FOREIGN INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `foreign Internet Protocol address' means an Internet Protocol address that is not a domestic Internet protocol address.

                      (8) FOREIGN INTERNET SITE- The term `foreign Internet site' means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.

                      (9) INCLUDING- The term `including' means including, but not limited to.

                      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

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:53pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Wikipedia also has a domain registered in the US and it isn't illegal is it, moron?

                        Who exactly do you think you're fooling with this nonsense?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:04pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Did you miss the part where it says "(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--"

                          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.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Modplan (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:14pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Considering the definition of foreign vs domestic is based solely on where the domain name is registered, there's nothing in SOPA that would protect Wikipedia simply because they have a US domain name, so long as they also have foreign domains registered, with no language in the bill that immunises those who own a multitude of domain names that would belong to various countries.
                          Domestic vs Foreign

                          The concept of 'domestic' versus 'foreign' on the internet is complex. For example, reddit's primary servers are located in Virginia, however we have domain names through foreign registrars (redd.it, reddit.co.uk). The site is hosted via a third-party content-delivery network (Akamai). This means that if you connect to reddit from a foreign country, you are likely connecting to an Akamai server not located in the U.S. This legislation naively ignores this complexity, and simply labels a site 'foreign' or 'domestic' based solely on the domain name.

                          The legislators sponsoring these bills have indicated that they are only targeted at truly foreign sites. However, the language is so loose and ignorant of what is truly a foreign site that there is a huge amount of room to argue what is actually "foreign".

                          Facilitation of criminal violations

                          The potential for abuse in this language is painfully obvious. "Facilitation" can often be argued as simply teaching or demonstrating how to do something. Under this definition, a site could be targeted for something as simple as describing how to rip a Blu-Ray. This language also makes it clear that the legislation is not solely targeting sites "dedicated to theft".
                          http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:19pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Too bad this guy is lying. If this or any other US site is legal in the US, its foreign server is also legal in the US.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:22pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              And a post describing how to rip a blu-ray doesn't make it under the definition of a site dedicated to infringement.

                              This guy is nothing but a slimy liar.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:24pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--


                                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.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:27pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                The only liar here is you.

                                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.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:39pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Is right there in the law saying only "portions" of it need to be infringing so what is this nonsense that it needs to be "wholesale"?

                                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.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:26pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Where? Where is the language that says only "portions"? What percentage?

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:45pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Now is your turn to show everybody where in the law it says it needs to be the whole website needs to be dedicated to infringement, because what is written there is that only portions of it needs to be dedicate to infringement to trigger sanctions.

                                Please point to the text showing your version Slimer.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:21pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  what is written there is that only portions of it needs to be dedicate to infringement to trigger sanctions.

                                  oh really? Then post the exact language that says that.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:31pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Really, no seriously.

                                    Quote:
                                    SEC. 102. ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. SUPPORT OF FOREIGN INFRINGING SITES.

                                    (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--

                                    (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;

                                    (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; 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.


                                    Can you do word searches in text?
                                    If you can blink twice and search for "or portion thereof".

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:22pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Did courts decided what will constitute or not a foreign website already?

                              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.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:35pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              The definition of foreign is very clear in the law proposed, if it is registered outside the US then it is a foreign what part of that you didn't understand liar?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Modplan (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:51pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Who said anything about the servers being legal? Once again, SOPA doesn't give a shit about where the servers are, only where the domain names are. Nor does SOPA immunise a site with both a US domain name and a foreign one, meaning so long as a site has registered a foreign domain name, SOPA would seem to apply.
                              (5) DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE- The term `domestic Internet site' means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.

                              [...]

                              (8) FOREIGN INTERNET SITE- The term `foreign Internet site' means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.

                              http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112W9WibB:e3532:

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:20pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Yeah, so? What exactly are you trying to say?

                                Wikipedia isn't dedicated to infringement. The bill won't affect them in the slightest.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:25pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Only portions thereof need to be classified as dedicated to infringement to trigger action.

                                  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".

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:32pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    (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.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:44pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      What is saying right there is that any website dedicate to infringement whole or not can suffer action, that is what the "either" word above indicates.

                                      Either means "any of these", it doesn't mean "only this one".

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:36pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Can you point to the language that says a single post could classify a site as
                                    "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.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:49pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      You forgot the "(B)Either--" part which puts the whole thing into perspective, any violation of any of those sections can trigger action against someone so eve a post describing how to circumvent anything can be seem as "or portion thereof" dedicated to infringement.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:04pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        Suggesting a web site would be taken down for one post is pure FUD.

                                        You people are shameless.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:42pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          Can you prove now that it cannot, people showed you the verbiage in the law that would allow such scenario and you keep insisting it doesn't exist when is right there in front of your eyes. What is the problem? mental blockage due to mental bias interference?

                                          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).

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:49pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          But making up harm to press for censor ready legislation is not?

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:01pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          We are not suggesting anything is written in black and whit in all its glory "or portions thereof" what part of "portion" you don't understand?

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:11pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          That is not even the half of it, it was just the first section of the law and it already showed everyone that it was a bad law.

                                          SOPA also may criminalize and make US businessmen criminals and responsible for anything that happens in their websites that are registered outside the US.

                                          (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and


                                          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.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Killercool (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:49pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      Easily. Each section, including the one you use to support your own argument, is prepended by some variation of "the Internet site or portion thereof."
                                      Portion is not defined, and last I checked, any portion, however small, is still a portion. Including a single, user-generated post.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Modplan (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:11pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      The part where it says:

                                      (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--

                                      (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;

                                      (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code;

                                      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.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:56pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Ok you want to go there right, so lets go there moron.

                      (2) REASONABLE MEASURES- After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:

                      (A) SERVICE PROVIDERS-

                      (i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

                      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

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:05pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Wow, you are about as sharp as a bowling ball.

                        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?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:14pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Refers to ISP's being forced to censor anybody including Wikipedia at the whims of the government.

                          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.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:51pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I believe what you are saying is that it does not appear to be a "service provider" as defined in Section 101 of the bill.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:59pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Ok you want to go there right, so lets go there moron.

                      (C) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS-

                      (i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION- A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account--

                      (I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and

                      (II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.

                      (ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

                      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

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:07pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Once again, Wikipedia also has a domain registered in the US and it isn't illegal.

                        Once again, who exactly do you think you're fooling with this nonsense?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:12pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          It says right there in the proposal "parts thereof" it doesn't need to be the whole website it only needs to have one foreign component to apply to the entire entity or are you just so stupid you can see what that means?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:07pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      That is just for starters the whole thing is shite and should be entirely turn down.

                      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

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:03pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The is easy the entire bill would affect Wikipedia.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:16pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  First they came for Napster, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pirate.

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Loki, 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:43pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  IT doesn't need to affect Wikipedia directly.

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:28pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Not sure I agree that the DMCA was rammed through. The safe harbor provision was inserted to reach an accommodation between rights holders and service providers, and the insertion was at the request of service providers.

                    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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Derek Kerton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:30pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Instead of asking us to do pointless work of finding precise language in a vague bill, why don't YOU point out to me the "exact language" of the earlier Pro-IP legislation that should "effect [sic]" the website Dajaz1.

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Jay (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What the hell is with this argument that people always need to have an alternative?

              This isn't binary code.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                The eejit (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:23pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                For Lamar, it might as well be: he'll still have a job by the end of it.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:23pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                What the hell is with this argument that people always need to have an alternative?

                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?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bjupton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:03pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  It almost seems more like:

                  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!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  the defenestrator (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I've wondered about this too, but then I saw an answer on another blog that went something like this:

                  "technology made this (infringement) happen, so it's technology's resposibility to fix it"

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Your response is the typical response of people who don't want to deal with the real issues.

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Everyone knows SOPA wouldn't have any effect on Wikipedia...Sir, if everyone knows that, then why do you bother to mention it?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              TtfnJohn (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Tim O'Reilly already offered up the solutions. How many times does it have to be done?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:42am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                No, you misunderstand. They don't just want alternatives, they want alternatives that other people can enforce for them, with as little work on their part as possible. That's why it's like talking to a brick wall - things like changing business models and treating the world like the international marketplace it truly is requires actual work. It's *hard*. They want alternatives that are as easy as buying off senators and making others to enforce rules for them.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Loki, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Everyone knows SOPA wouldn't have any effect on Wikipedia,

              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".

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              keiichi969 (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:27pm

              Re: 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?


              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              shouldn't he offer alternatives.

              No. You don't have to be a cow to say the milk tastes bad.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            kyle clements (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:08pm

            Re: 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


            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?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Why does there need to be an alternate? Piracy is not going to stop because of legislation, just like people aren't going to stop drinking if their's a alcohol prohibition.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            People aren't going to stop murdering because there are murder laws. Why have murder laws?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That is easy, because everybody agrees murdering is something bad and we as a group don't want it, piracy on the other hand has only a few people who complain loudly and are hijacking the discussion and the implementation of sane laws.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:32pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Nope but we can put the small percentage of people who want to murder others in jail and keep them there, pirates on the other hand would mean free food, housing and healthcare to 30% of the population on the lower side of the calculations, are you going to pay for that?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:13pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Murdering is actually morally wrong though, so . . .

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Unlike piracy, murdering individuals can be stopped.

              Are you going to pay to put 30% of the population of every country in the world behind bars?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              What you mean to say, but in your haste to make an ill thought out and terrible analogy is.... "why have laws against murder?" I'd also accept (as correct) "why have anti-murder laws"

              "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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 1:21am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "ill thought out and terrible analogy"

                Tactic #5 in the AC playbook, usually reverted to after calling people thieves and saying they haven't read the bill have failed.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Derek Kerton (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So you think the main reason people don't murder is murder laws?

              Also, you think nobody commits murder because there are laws against it?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          suggest an alternative

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous 314159, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: Alternatives

          You mean like this?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Loki, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          When we see some legislation that actually deals with piracy we can discuss the matter.

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws.org (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Is Wales going to suggest an alternative or just protest any piracy legislation that is introduced?

          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?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Plumbum, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:26pm

        Re: Re:

        Over here (England) the wording is that they're shutting down to protest against anti-piracy laws, making it seem cut-and-dry and that Wikimedia are villains.

        GG, BBC.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Marcel de Jong (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 4:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Meanwhile it isn't even an anti-piracy law. SOPA does nothing to deter piracy. Nor does PIPA protect Imaginary, I mean 'Intellectual' Property.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          indieThing, 18 Jan 2012 @ 7:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, I saw that and was disgusted, so I dropped them an email to complain via their website:


          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 1:59pm

      Re:

      You have to overplay your hand to combat people who are overplaying a thousand hands with money clenched in their fists.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:00pm

      Re:

      How? Their purpose is to provide readers with educational material on a variety of topics. Since this one topic needs to be shared more prominently with the public, why not do it?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:12pm

      Re:

      Yeah, it's tough to grow a spine and actually make a stand to defend what you think is right. That's why we post as AC, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Are you God?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 11:04am

        Re: Re:

        Not really I am just at school and am not able to log in. My name is Zachary Ethridge and my email is zac78155@yahoo.com

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:21pm

      Re:

      Not the only one doing so. Comment in the article that Wikipedia "could" run into a problem appears intended to create yet another panic that does not track the acutal language of the bills. "Knowingly and wilfully" is not in there simply to increase the bill's word count.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        RonKaminsky (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:20pm

        Re: Re:

        It frankly doesn't matter at all that those words, or any others, are in the bill, as long as the private interests which this bill empowers get to decide whether the words of the bill apply to a website, without judicial oversight controlling the immediate consequences.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:27pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Perhaps you would be so kind as to direct me to the location in the bill where an extra-judicial right of action is conferred.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Killercool (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            In order:

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              After a court agrees the site is dedicated to infringement.

              So?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I doubt any court will take great care to preserve the First Amendment or any other important law since they are not obliged to do so and nothing happens if they don't, so when they start getting the list with thousands of infringing websites I am pretty sure nobody will look at it more than a second before rubber stamping the damn thing.

                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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Killercool (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:41pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                A court does NOT have to agree that the site is dedicated to infringement, just that the belief that such was true was "reasonable".

                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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 7:40pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And what are the standards by which one gets the court to agree? "But but but piracy"? Or will they actually get real standards this time, befitting a burden of proof?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Something seems missing from your 101(23). I have the manager's amendment to the original bill, and in it 101(23) provides that a US-Directed Site is a foreign Internet site.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            RonKaminsky (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 1:33pm

            Section 104

            In Section 104, payment providers (and others) are granted immunity from prosecution if (and only if) they act on requests from private parties claiming infringement.

            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".

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        The eejit (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:27pm

        Re: Re:

        Are you psychic?

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:08pm

        Re: Re:

        Wikipedia "could" run into a problem appears intended to create yet another panic that does not track the acutal language of the bills


        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Hephaestus (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Any site that enables posting potentially infringing material could be taken down by SOPA."

          Any site that enables posting could be taken down by SOPA.

          FTFY

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      gorehound (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:28pm

      Re:

      Thanks to the wikipedia stunt they mentioned the PIPA/SOPA for the first time in the whole state of maine.go ahead and do a search on the portland press herald and see how many times they said anything.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 9:01am

      Re:

      Uh No, I don't think you really understand what is going on here. Nor how bad this really is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2012 @ 12:49pm

      Re:

      you're a dumbass

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2012 @ 7:08am

        Re: Re:

        You would be saying this not to me but the people who formed this government and all those they learned from since I am merely repeating what they have already put their names to. And according to this site, you're a nobody and likely the reason why some think the government should be regulating the internet.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:00pm

    Menacing implication?

    It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today.

    Interesting choice of words there. It seems to imply that the freedoms they enjoy won't be there tomorrow.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spike (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:01pm

    The internet is the only place for the most part that is actually reporting and protesting on this abortion of a bill. That's right, MPAA member companies news outlets are NOT reporting on it.

    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...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spike (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:03pm

    As per my comment above, that fits the description of "abuse of power".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:05pm

    Clearly

    Taking down the websites of others = Not abuse
    Taking down your own website = Abuse

    /MPAA_insane_troll_logic

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mike42 (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:07pm

    Flashbacks...

    I am constantly reminded of the tobacco industrie's claims that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer. They bought a few congress-critters who were equally absurd as Lamar.
    I'd also love to know what "corporate interests" Wikipedia is supposed to be protecting with the blackout.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:07pm

    Abuse of power! OMG the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:08pm

    Oh, really?

    "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."

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:08pm

    Lame Ar

    Ole lame ar (lamar) will start attacking all that oppose him. Thats what he is payed to do. Hold off all opposition and pass this thing. What do you do want you can't intellectually defend your position? Stick out your tongue and start mocking your critics.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Kevin H (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:14pm

    "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."

    Pot calling kettle. Come in Kettle....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Malibu Cusser (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:15pm

    Fixed that for ya...

    It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who used to rely on them for entertainment. It is also an abuse of power given the monopolies these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that used to serve as gateways to entertainment intentionally skew the facts to incite their lawmakers in order to further their corporate interests.

    A so-called "necessary law" is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish American jobs creators. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to pass this "law" to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat copyright infringement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Doe, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:16pm

    TFTFY...

    The bill will harm non-domestic blogs and social networking sites.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:20pm

      Re: TFTFY...

      It's like a trifecta. Hollywood gets to shut down any new competitors at a whim, the US government gets their foot in the door for censorship, and Hollywood/US government attempts to make all new content come from US companies doing harm to foreign economies thinking they'll help the US economy. There's nothing get about these bills.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:23pm

      Re: TFTFY...

      Reason being they don't want to compete in an open market where one can purchase foreign products outside of domestic corporations' control, which is ironic given how much of 'our' products are outsourced to begin with.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:18pm

    you think a cockstar like lamar smith understands legislation a loybist writes for him to sponsor?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:20pm

    That's strange, I thought Lamar Smiths position on Sopa was a publicity stunt to get him more funding for his re-election campaign.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:26pm

      Re:

      I could have sworn he considered SOPA as some conspiracy to teach the tech industry, along with the masses who support the internet, the power that they have when they are working together for a common and just goal.

      Because if that was his intention, it is working pretty damn well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:17pm

        Re: Re:

        I don't think it is working the way he wanted though.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    weneedhelp (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:23pm

    It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act

    Anger level 10. Someone just kick this guys teeth in. Really. What would you get a year and some probation?

    "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!!!!!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ShellMG, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:03pm

      Re: It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act

      They're doing more than just that -- by NOT reporting.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    anonymous, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:26pm

    a good protest would be to shut down the websites of all the entertainment industries. give them a taste of what will happen if the Bills pass. anyone think of a 'take down' request that could be used? i wonder what the reaction would be if that happened?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gwiz (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:29pm

    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.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:01pm

      Re:

      Don't you understand? Any time you oppose a politician for failing to represent your views, you are punishing elected officials. And that's just wrong. Since when has democracy been about allowing people to organize in protest of government action?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      AzureSky (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 8:02pm

      Re:

      yeah, now if somebody/bodies pulled out a belt/switch and started flogging the SOB's who support this shit...that would be a good punishment....well starter punishment...then you could really get evil and make them watch some of their own content....start with "the room" make them drink plenty of stimulants and watch that shit...lol.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:32pm

    Furthering interests

    Seriously, who honestly thinks that Wikipedia, Reddit and others are shutting down their sites to "further their corporate 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Robert (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:32pm

    Fine, I'll Do It!!!

    Let's take up donations, all $$ go to Lamar Smith to buy him back (and I'm a Canadian).

    Shall I setup a PayPal account? Perhaps call it BuyBackOurPoliticians@PayPay.com?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Atkray (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:46pm

      Re: Fine, I'll Do It!!!

      Actually that is a really good idea. Have a place where people (not corporation people) can donate and the money is split up amongst all the congressmen that sign on to not accepting any lobbying bribes/gifts.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Violated (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:19pm

      Re: Fine, I'll Do It!!!

      The only way that would work is a long term funding plan. No good a one year buy back if he has been MPAA/RIAA funded for 20 years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2012 @ 10:19am

      Re: Fine, I'll Do It!!!

      How about $1 a day to adopt a politician... we could put up pictures of these poor politicians wondering where their next bribehand out will come from. Some caring family can adopt the politician and provide a steady bribehand out revenue stream for a year. Great idea!!! I wonder if World Vision is interested.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Beta (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:37pm

    like the fourth dimension

    "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..."

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Heretictus (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:32pm

      Re: like the fourth dimension

      My thoughts exactly. It's becomming clear that Lamar Smith thinks only of himself in all aspects of his daily life. It's what he is at his core. He simply can't comprehend the idea of standing up for other people's rights.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Leonidas, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:37pm

    [i]"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.”[\i]

    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...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:38pm

      Re:

      As I recall a lot of people opposed to the march tried to portray it as exactly that at the time.

      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. ;-)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ukko, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:39pm

    Lamar Smith is the MPAA's catamite. He'll refuse to back down no matter what because he's afraid of losing his industry-paid NAMBLA membership. The only way to defeat SOPA is to keep up the pressure until enough of his colleagues listen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:51pm

    Lamar is either dishonest or stupid.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 2:58pm

    When the MPAA/RIAA astroturfs in support of its own viewpoint on a bill, it's democracy in action. When the bills' opponents inform their own users of their viewpoints on a bill, it's irresponsible, dangerous, and troubling. The old guard appears envious that it no longer has the ears of the people. That's what happens when you stagnate your industry into communicative irrelevance and do nothing to engender goodwill among the public. Cry me a river.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    MrWilson, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:09pm

    Translation:

    Lamar Smith: "Wikipedia should shut up because we haven't come for them yet!"

    First they came for "foreign websites dedicated to infringement..."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:09pm

    I like Lamar Smith, it takes a special kind of crazy to walk up to reality, look it in the eyes and say "Nope, i'm not buying it".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    DCX2, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:11pm

    First they came...

    First they came for "rogue sites". And I did not speak up, because I did not own a "rogue site".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:24pm

    Lets defeat SOPA once in for all.
    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:30pm

      Re:

      People didn't know you could embed a webserver on an application?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_lightweight_web_servers

      Lets call it #Operation Clone Wars.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      s. keeling, 18 Jan 2012 @ 10:34am

      Re: Call for all coders ...

      Call for all coders to start a race to develop a [distributed] P2P fileshare system that has [an] embedded webserver that replicates the Pirate Bay in every computer installed, it only takes 5Gigabytes.

      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!]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:38pm

    SOPA we will threaten local business so they do the right thing which is censor the internet and that will affect the people who live in other countries.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:43pm

    Have anybody asked Lamar how threatning and beating local business will affect foreign business?

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:54pm

      Re:

      They ignore any and all protests to push the law through, then threaten trade sanctions and whatnot to strongarm other countries' governments into implementing a local version against their (and their citizens') wishes.
      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:30pm

        Re: Re:

        They have a hard time pressuring China, even Australia to sign anything since almost 50% of Australia incomes comes from China due to the mineral exports, that is happening in other countries as well, Asia is becoming more important economically and the US doesn't have that much say anymore, bombs and armies will not win this, economics will and the US is going in the wrong direction.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    rubberpants, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:45pm

    They're Scared

    The average person is about to learn about SOPA, and they're not going to like it. Regulating the Internet will become a toxic issue that no politician will want to champion. This is just one more example of how the Internet upsets the status quo, why the powerful are so eager to control it, and why they will fail.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:47pm

    "The police state uses everything to justify more police state."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 3:59pm

    Lamar has my respect

    When that man is bought and paid for, he STAYS bought and paid for, no matter the truth or logic that is thrown his way.

    Also, he's got balls the size of kumquats.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:00pm

    I'm surprised Lamar Smith can even speak...

    ...given how full his mouth is, while he's down there on his knees servicing the MPAA/RIAA/etc.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

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

    2552 News Articles about Blackout

    As of about 4:22 Pacific Time there are 2552 news articles listed about the SOPA/PIPA blackout tomorrow. No, I have not read them all, but you know what they say: "Any publicity is good publicity".

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MahaliaShere (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:38pm

    Smith is clearly upset that he won't be able to use Wikipedia tomorrow.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:38pm

    POOP

    I predict the next bill Lamar Smith introduces will be named Prevent Online Organizations from Protesting or POOP for short.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bongo houzi (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 4:57pm

    I was gonna tell the AC that uses personal attacks, bad form jack, but TechDirt beat me to it by pulling his post.

    TD FTFY

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 5:33pm

    Mr. Lamar Smith is a disgrace to every American.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 6:03pm

    "It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today."

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:01pm

    Maybe society needs to split

    Maybe the divide is just too big.

    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!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 8:20pm

    US Credibility Abroad - Foreign Policy

    A very good point was brought up in a public meeting at State last week. The State Department advocates very vocally throughout the world for the need to have an open and free Internet as a mechanism to foster freedom of speech and democracy. The US would lose its moral credibility to advocate for this should SOPA pass.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Violated (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:49pm

      Re: US Credibility Abroad - Foreign Policy

      The moral credibility of the State Department is already in question after they forced on Spain (under threats) their own SOPA-like law.

      Actions will speak vastly more than minor words from now on.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Shaun Wilson (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:04pm

    MPAA skews facts?

    I thought it was more the politicians campaign funds that the MPAA typically "skews"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:07pm

    Its just politicians wanting money, I say the people should stop this nonsense by calling for the resignation of ALL career politicians

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Violated (profile), 17 Jan 2012 @ 9:37pm

    Blackout Started

    The MPAA and Lamar Smith have done it this time. Let us keep in mind who are the biggest liars around with their propaganda economics and much more.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Brian Dell, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:06am

    Wikipedia still a charity?

    If Wikipedia keeps up with the lobbying the IRS will pull their non-profit status. Correct terminology would therefore be "was" a charity and "might" still be.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 3:35am

      Re: Wikipedia still a charity?

      If Wikipedia keeps up with the lobbying

      News flash: blacking out your site in protest is not "lobbying."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 8:15am

      Re: Wikipedia still a charity?

      If Wikipedia keeps up with the lobbying the IRS will pull their non-profit status. Correct terminology would therefore be "was" a charity and "might" still be.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      wallow-T, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:31pm

      Re: Wikipedia still a charity?

      Wikipedia: "... the IRS will pull their non-profit status."

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    wec, 18 Jan 2012 @ 6:30am

    Per Myth Busters:
    Lamar Smith: "I reject reality and substitute my own!"

    Sorry, Myth Busters

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Malatesta, 18 Jan 2012 @ 10:43am

    Of course it is.

    Of course it's a publicity stunt, it's just not Wikipedia's publicity stunt, it's "the people's". Wikipedia is showing solidarity with thousands, if not millions, of other websites that are against these policies.

    Join our FB group to hold these people accountable:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/imprisonllamarsmith/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stephan, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:14pm

    Money -> Mouth

    If, as congressbeing Lamar Smith says, "the bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites", he could volunteer to personally underwrite all legal costs for Wikipedia, all social networking sites, and all domestic blogs for lawsuits arising from SOPA and PIPA.

    Plausible? If not, why not?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Derek Kerton (profile), 18 Jan 2012 @ 2:08pm

      Re: Money -> Mouth

      I like your intention, but your proposal is not logical.

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Crn_V1, 19 Jan 2012 @ 4:43am

    So lemme get this straight: MPAA abuses power to get things done their way, and then they acuse Wikipedia for "abusing power to get their way" by letting people know what's going on....
    "Pot calling kettle black" much, MPAA?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Crockett, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:16am

    Another Black mark for Texas

    Just another embarrassment for the State of 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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Davis, 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:43am

    What is diligent?

    "elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals"

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    The Luke Witnesser, 20 Jan 2012 @ 5:00am

    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=WJIuYgIvKsc
    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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