Wikipedia shuts down

[Walsingham]

I haven't time to run through an entire case here, but I would like to air a view which I haven't seen in the papers:

 

I agree that forcing a business to take charge of copyright infringement will mean the effective end of free user-generated content. But is that really so earth shattering? I mean it is for some of the biggest websites online currently, like wikipedia. But honestly how bad is it if they fail? It's not as if this is awfully unjust. As Guard Dog will be happy to illustrate to you, govt regulation frequently strangles businesses on the vine.

 

These companies who stand to lose out the most are the biggest winners of the last few years. Youtube, wikipedia, facebook. I just can't get worked up on their behalf.

[pmp10]

From what I understand the problem was that SOPA allowed blacklisting sites for a mere suspicion of copyright infringement.

But I agree that the opposition to it makes a poor impression.

Not only are they in vast majority interested parties but also seem to value petty insults over meritorical discussion.

[Walsingham]

Only fair to point out that I just needed to look up the constituents of saltpetre, and couldn't.

 

At least not until I remembered I have, you know, BOOKS.

[Pidesco]

Javascript, man. Or the stop button on your browser.

[Malcador]

Wikipedia has been a winner ? Why is Wales begging me with his huge face all the time then

 

I'm not sure how the opposition to SOPA is relying on petty insults, though. The search engine and DNS filtering is a bit much, the latter you'd think would push ISPs to start policing all access.

[Tale]

It's not about the big websites failing. It's about all the websites that focus on user-generated content failing and a framework for censorship. Startups aren't going to have the infrastructure to enforce the requirements, either. They'll be more in danger than the likes of Wikipedia.

 

There was no input from technology companies outside of large media companies involved in the bills' (there's two) creations. So it was weighted heavily to protect copyright holders with no regards to the impact on infrastructure and how hard it'll be for the people who actually end up being forced to enforce it. And there's an insufficient system of checks-and-balances to prevent abuse. We've already seen problems of media companies abusing DMCA for censorship purposes in defiance of fair use. The proposed laws would only make that worse.

[Junai]

Anyone who writes or distributes Virtual Private Network, proxy, privacy or anonymization software would be negatively affected. This includes organizations that are funded by the State Department to create circumvention software to help democratic activists get around authoritarian regimes

[HoonDing]

Who cares. Internet sucks anyway.

[Calax]

I think a guy on the colbert report had said that if you were to parody/lip synch to a song on youtube, you could get your ass dragged into court, while a lot of people are talking like it's the end of the 'net, I don't think it'd be entirely the end...

 

Although seeing GOOGLE protesting (not shutting down because that'd kill the entire internet themselves) probably is going to make a big impact.

[Walsingham]

Anyone who writes or distributes Virtual Private Network, proxy, privacy or anonymization software would be negatively affected. This includes organizations that are funded by the State Department to create circumvention software to help democratic activists get around authoritarian regimes

[Tale]

Except when one guy utilizing fair use material can get an entire site shut down. This isn't "a degree of regulation." This is carte blanche for media companies to shut down entire domains without due process.

[Blarghagh]

Small business owners such as webcomic creators or independent artists are in much more danger than something like Wikipedia, although the first victim will obviously be activist site Wikileaks. One comic creator described it as "one guy uses a Snow White avatar in my comment section and they have grounds to shut down MY entire website". I've checked it out, and that seems to be true, because that's exactly the sort of thing that falls under the terribly undefined SOPA description of the website "facilitating the illegal spread of copyrighted material" (I don't remember the exact wording, but it came down to that). It is a real danger to the livelyhood of thousands of people and represents enormous financial and cultural losses. Guess how many people on this board have a movie avatar, or something similar? Wave your community goodbye.

 

As far as I can tell, SOPA and PIPA are poor piece of vaguely worded, draconian legislation written by corrupt people on the take from Hollywood bigwigs - it allows any large corporation to shut down and blacklist whatever and whoever they don't like while still leaving independent artists with no way to protect their own material and no outlets to show themselves because it essentially marks the end of social media and digital life as we know it. It's not about protecting IPs or copyrighted material. I don't usually believe in this "stick it to the man" fake rebel nonsense, but in this case, the only thing that this legislation does is give huge, faceless corporations the ability to regulate in disturbing detail what people are exposed to. Critic pans your movie, but used a couple of screenshots in the review? Shut it down!

 

The worst thing is, they will be able to do this without a single court appearance or judicial sign-off. What does it require? A single letter claiming a "good faith belief" that a site has infringed on content. And painfully, they don't do a thing to further what they claim is their eventual goal. The Pirate Bay and other foreign operators have already issued statements that they're not afraid, this won't stop them, and most users have already been informed of ways to get around any technological barrier these people could throw up. It is useless against piracy and it is obvious that the people behind it know that. It's a false front to cheat people into legislation that simply cannot be used for good.

 

Honestly, as an entertainment creator this thing scares the holy bejeezus out of me. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I feel this is something WWII era Nazi's would do, not the enlightened country the United States of America claims to be. It is foul, it is criminal and it is evil, and the fact that it remains popular in the house of representatives while the White House, the creators of the internet and millions of others have spoken out against it only goes to show that they are corrupt and in desperate need of serious restructuring and investigation.

Edited January 18, 2012 by TrueNeutral

[Hurlshort]

I really don't see this thing getting passed, or staying passed for long. It's too sloppy and there is too much resistance.

[Calax]

I think people would be fine with just protecting the Intellectual Property of companies, but giving corporations the carte-blanche to eliminate websites and censor materials because they MIGHT be violating copywrite is... frightening.

 

As it is, youtube is starting to swim into dangerous waters with their DMCA blockings. Basically anyone can file a DMCA claim and it's up to the poster of the video to prove that they didn't violate the DMCA. This is usually used by ideologues to eliminate opposing material (usually criticisms of the ideologues personal opinions being stated as facts) and has nearly led to Youtube itself being sued.

 

Now imagine that, but on the scale of entire websites.

[Rostere]

LOL, the U.S., what can you say... I'm not really surprised, considering the events in the recent decade.

 

I guess eventually, the individual will have no rights against the state/ strong corporations at all over there. This is all a part of a quite recent trend. Strange, how the U.S. is growing more and more like China. People talk of increased Chinese political influence. Well, this is probably not what they meant, but if it was, I'd say the Chinese have done a damn fine job.

[Gfted1]

[Deraldin]

And the people react to Wikipedia being down.

 

Herpderpedia Twitter Feed

[Tigranes]

What I understand about this is closest to what TN describes - the real problem is that it opens up a lot of legal spaces in which we can eventually get big problems for things like Let's Plays, youtube amateur productions, other works of parody and pastiche, modding, and the millions of other things that play in the pool of fair use / diffusion. After all, the legal grounds for a lot of such online culture is very loosely defined.

 

It might not be perfect but I support Wikipedia and other sites going 'black' in protest.

[Malcador]

http://mpaa.org/resources/c4c3712a-7b9f-4b...5527d5dfad8.pdf

 

Good laugh.

[Calax]

And the people react to Wikipedia being down.

 

Herpderpedia Twitter Feed

the scary part about this is how many 'OMG IT'S DEAD! I SHALL FAIL SCHOOL!" notes there are.

[Gorth]

And the people react to Wikipedia being down.

 

Herpderpedia Twitter Feed

the scary part about this is how many 'OMG IT'S DEAD! I SHALL FAIL SCHOOL!" notes there are.

Imagine the horror of having to move yourself bodily down to the library and search for books...

[Deraldin]

And the people react to Wikipedia being down.

 

Herpderpedia Twitter Feed

the scary part about this is how many 'OMG IT'S DEAD! I SHALL FAIL SCHOOL!" notes there are.

Imagine the horror of having to move yourself bodily down to the library and search for books...

 

Books? What the hell are books?!

[WDeranged]

And the people react to Wikipedia being down.

 

Herpderpedia Twitter Feed

the scary part about this is how many 'OMG IT'S DEAD! I SHALL FAIL SCHOOL!" notes there are.

Imagine the horror of having to move yourself bodily down to the library and search for books...

 

Books? What the hell are books?!

 

Those things you rent from Amazon

[Guard Dog]

While internet piracy is a big problem the SOPA & PIPA bills are just awful. They would give the US Government the power to order providers to block sites deemed to have "stolen" content and preclude businesses from advertising on sites deemed to have "stolen" content. And who gets the final say on what sites get blocked? The US Government. This is a raw and naked power grab. They will have the power to block any site they choose based only on a poorly defined criteria that they can apply at their caprice. Think of the potential ramifications for political speech online. This bill could and probably will be horribly abused down the line.

 

Like I said, internet piracy is a problem but this cures the headache by cutting off the head...potentially. I sent e-mails to the roaches in my congressional delegation last week. So far the House Rep opposes and the Senators have yet to take a position. I'll send another one to each next week and again before the vote. If there is one. I read tonight the bill's sponsers are pulling their support. Hurlie might be right and this thing will die on the vine. More likely they will want to bury it until the press dies down and try to quietly pass it later. The MPA is a powerful and wealthy lobby, lots of money in supporting this crap. Plus I think the idea of taking control of the internet in some measure appeals to the "big-government" types.

[Orogun01]

And the people react to Wikipedia being down.

 

Herpderpedia Twitter Feed

the scary part about this is how many 'OMG IT'S DEAD! I SHALL FAIL SCHOOL!" notes there are.

Imagine the horror of having to move yourself bodily down to the library and search for books...

 

Books? What the hell are books?!

 

Those things you rent from Amazon

Or those things that the education businesses tries to shove down your orifices for $50 even though you are not going to read all of it or even open it after you finish your class.

 

As for SOPA, **** corporations. That's my take on the subject.