Wikipedia shuts down

[Oblarg]

Seriously, laws exist for a reason. The internet isn't some magical new dimension. It's a new dimension, but there's nothing magical about it. If it's going to be a boon to mankind it needs a degree of regulation. Currently that just isn't happening, and it isn't good.

 

There's still going to be a proven appetite for user generated content online. But perhaps people will be obliged and empowered to go out there and create it, not just rip it off.

 

The free exchange of ideas is one of the few things which I strongly believe requires no (or minimal) regulation, by its very nature, to function. The internet is a communicative tool, not an alternate reality. Why should we needlessly restrict this legitimate extension of the basic human right to make ones voice heard, especially over an issue as comparatively trivial as piracy?

 

I refuse to cede my own rights on no more justification than the (possible) benefit of several large corporations, especially when I fail to see compelling evidence that piracy is the drain on the industry which it is purported to be, especially in the case of businesses which overwhelmingly profit purely from antiquated IP law and exploitation of artists, and especially in a law that is so ambiguously worded as to make its abuse for purposes which have nothing to do with fighting piracy essentially unavoidable. The copyright law needs to be rewritten to work in the age of the internet - the internet does not need to be reworked to fit old copyright law.

 

Plus I think the idea of taking control of the internet in some measure appeals to the "big-government" types.

 

You'd probably call me a "big-government" type, and I think this is a ****ing outrage.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Oblarg

[Rosbjerg]

Plus I think the idea of taking control of the internet in some measure appeals to the "big-government" types.

 

No, these kinda laws only appeal to the absolute top of society. Big government types aren't interested in corruption and corporatism, just like small government isn't interested in complete anarchy.

[Guard Dog]

I was referring to politicians who favor big government. After all, controlling the internet is only appealing to the people who would be in control of it.

 

There is a great quote from an old computer game of all places. "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master".

[Gorgon]

Policing the web is a logical conclusion to how much of our interactions have gravitated there. I sure don't hope the intellectual propery rights lobby manage to completely tame the west though.

 

The net could evolve into a rather terrifying method of control. I mean you already have to watch what you put out there. Companies have guidelines about what employees are allowed to say on social networks about their workplace which extend far past privileged information. The same goes for marketability in a job seeking situation, You can't afford to offend anybody.

[Walsingham]

The free exchange of ideas is one of the few things which I strongly believe requires no (or minimal) regulation, by its very nature, to function. The internet is a communicative tool, not an alternate reality. Why should we needlessly restrict this legitimate extension of the basic human right to make ones voice heard, especially over an issue as comparatively trivial as piracy?

 

I feel I'm maybe missing part of your point, but time is limited so I'll forge ahead.

 

Intellectual property has to be treated as property and protected or the production of that substance will wither. Surely this is a simple dynamic.

 

What we are talking about here is the way property moves, and you are suggesting that it must move freely. However, distributing material which YOU have generated yourself is different from material which others have generated.

 

OK, lost my thread now. Back to work.

[Moose]

And the people react to Wikipedia being down.

 

Herpderpedia Twitter Feed

 

Bloody hell that's a scary thread. I know it's only polling the opinions of the bottom of society, but egads it's disturbing O_O

[Tale]

What we are talking about here is the way property moves, and you are suggesting that it must move freely. However, distributing material which YOU have generated yourself is different from material which others have generated.

The proposed bills threatened content YOU generate. Third parties could get entire domains shut down for things the owner has negligible control over. Fair usage had no exemptions and could only be argued in court after your site gets shut down and your funding cut off.

 

This is my big problem with the proposed bill. I want something to be done to help combat piracy. But the threat of collateral damage and outright abuse is too high in this particular case.

 

This isn't a new thing. The 90s saw two previous attempts at regulating the internet passed by the US government, the COPA and CDA. One of them was so broad and open to misuse it was overthrown in only a year. The other one we had to deal with for 10 years. We have several laws already in effect that currently aim to protect intellectual property in the digital domain, namely the DMCA (which we already have problems with being abused and insufficient remedies) and the Pro IP Act. And another bill that aimed to do more without quite as many problems as these two, ACTA.

 

The problem with these two isn't that they domesticate the wild west. It's that they give authority to burn down houses on flimsy pretext.

[Blarghagh]

And the people react to Wikipedia being down.

 

Herpderpedia Twitter Feed

 

Bloody hell that's a scary thread. I know it's only polling the opinions of the bottom of society, but egads it's disturbing O_O

 

I find it interesting how many people would fail their schools if not for wikipedia. I also find it interesting how many times people who have nothing to do with it get blamed, and that nobody actually read the front page comment that explained how to get around it.

 

Actually, interesting might be the wrong word. "Galling" or "terrifying" may be more accurate.

Edited January 19, 2012 by TrueNeutral

[Rosbjerg]

I was referring to politicians who favor big government. After all, controlling the internet is only appealing to the people who would be in control of it.

 

There is a great quote from an old computer game of all places. "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master".

 

Alpha Centaury I believe.

 

I think we should differentiate between corrupt politicians and ideological ones - because I'm sure corrupt right wingers would do the same.. Big government doesn't = control and abuse .. corruption however does, but that's an old discussion.

[Hurlshort]

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.

 

This post seems pretty silly now that congressmen are running away from this bill in droves. As I said, given the scale of the protests and resistance, the chances of it passing were slim and the odds of it surviving legal scrutiny were even slimmer. So maybe the US isn't quite like China after all.

[Walsingham]

I concede the point about the potential for abuse.

 

The problem as I see it is that they are essentially attempting to solve two problems with one rock. As I've remarked in other threads the existing concept of justice permits no intelligent distinction between persons who occasionally transgress and those whose entire lives are spent transgressing. A law is set up to prohibit a given behaviour common to both, and cathes only the former because unlike the latter they aren't as skilled.

[Guard Dog]

I think we should differentiate between corrupt politicians and ideological ones

 

If they are screwing you to the wall does it matter if it for profit or some mad vision of how the world should be?

 

But I do get your point.

[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.

 

This post seems pretty silly now that congressmen are running away from this bill in droves. As I said, given the scale of the protests and resistance, the chances of it passing were slim and the odds of it surviving legal scrutiny were even slimmer. So maybe the US isn't quite like China after all.

 

Of course I was exaggerating a lot Really, I don't even think SOPA/PIPA would be the end of Internet like many seem to - if there were corporations taking down wikipedia instead of wikipedia taking down wikipedia, the backlash would be crazy.

 

The things I really think are worrisome are other stuff, regarding surveillance and the judicial system. You'll have to forgive me for trolling a bit for trying to provoke a response regarding civil rights in general. But that discussion would really be a bit OT and it can't be interpreted as anything else than a compliment to this forum that no one took my bait

[Hurlshort]

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.

 

This post seems pretty silly now that congressmen are running away from this bill in droves. As I said, given the scale of the protests and resistance, the chances of it passing were slim and the odds of it surviving legal scrutiny were even slimmer. So maybe the US isn't quite like China after all.

 

Of course I was exaggerating a lot Really, I don't even think SOPA/PIPA would be the end of Internet like many seem to - if there were corporations taking down wikipedia instead of wikipedia taking down wikipedia, the backlash would be crazy.

 

The things I really think are worrisome are other stuff, regarding surveillance and the judicial system. You'll have to forgive me for trolling a bit for trying to provoke a response regarding civil rights in general. But that discussion would really be a bit OT and it can't be interpreted as anything else than a compliment to this forum that no one took my bait

 

Fair enough. I actually felt bad about my wording in that post, I think I sounded harsher than I meant there. What this whole episode has really shown is there are a lot of ignorant people in congress who will back stuff without learning much about it. But that isn't exactly news

[Blarghagh]

How about this new MegaUpload thing? For those who didn't hear, MegaUpload was shut down and their offices raided. I think it was a disturbingly calculating move on the part of the US government. Between pandering to hollywood moguls and timing it after the mass SOPA protest, it reeks of publicity and intimidation. Firstly, it sends a message of "We didn't lose, we'll shut you down anyway!", and doing it just when the entire internet is riled up to fight for an open internet ensured that Anonymous would react the way it did, so they can say "See? See what the internet is like? Criminals, all of them!". I'm not defending MegaUpload, the website was pretty clearly designed to further illegal practices and was obviously going to be taken down and deservedly so, but this seems like an intimidation tactic towards those who opposed SOPA and PIPA.

[Gorth]

How about this new MegaUpload thing? For those who didn't hear, MegaUpload was shut down and their offices raided. I think it was a disturbingly calculating move on the part of the US government. Between pandering to hollywood moguls and timing it after the mass SOPA protest, it reeks of publicity and intimidation. Firstly, it sends a message of "We didn't lose, we'll shut you down anyway!", and doing it just when the entire internet is riled up to fight for an open internet ensured that Anonymous would react the way it did, so they can say "See? See what the internet is like? Criminals, all of them!". I'm not defending MegaUpload, the website was pretty clearly designed to further illegal practices and was obviously going to be taken down and deservedly so, but this seems like an intimidation tactic towards those who opposed SOPA and PIPA.

Not necessarily. A guy in the UK is going to get extradited for prosecution in the US for running a website specializing in distribution of links to illegal downloads of TV series. They seized the $230000 he made in profit from it too. The cracking down on prominent gathering places for illegal activity has been going on for a while, it's not something recent.

[Blarghagh]

Agreed, and like I said it was the right thing to do. But the timing of it just seems incredibly suspicious to me.

[Gorth]

Hey. at least he'll get a trial in a court of law, not summarily executed by a board of directors from some corporation >_

[Junai]

Several prominent artists made a tribute to Megaupload called the Mega Song (or something similar..)

just before christmas. Now the label reps sue the founder and criticize the artists for their support.

[Walsingham]

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.

 

This post seems pretty silly now that congressmen are running away from this bill in droves. As I said, given the scale of the protests and resistance, the chances of it passing were slim and the odds of it surviving legal scrutiny were even slimmer. So maybe the US isn't quite like China after all.

 

Of course I was exaggerating a lot Really, I don't even think SOPA/PIPA would be the end of Internet like many seem to - if there were corporations taking down wikipedia instead of wikipedia taking down wikipedia, the backlash would be crazy.

 

The things I really think are worrisome are other stuff, regarding surveillance and the judicial system. You'll have to forgive me for trolling a bit for trying to provoke a response regarding civil rights in general. But that discussion would really be a bit OT and it can't be interpreted as anything else than a compliment to this forum that no one took my bait

 

I think the appropriate term for what you were doing was 'being mendacious' rather than 'trolling'.

[Meshugger]

Lets not kid ourselves. The only reason to try to regulate the internet is an excuse to consolidate the power of information from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.

[Walsingham]

Lets not kid ourselves. The only reason to try to regulate the internet is an excuse to consolidate the power of information from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.

 

Isn't that an anarchist's view of all law, though?

[213374U]

Intellectual property has to be treated as property and protected or the production of that substance will wither. Surely this is a simple dynamic.

 

What we are talking about here is the way property moves, and you are suggesting that it must move freely. However, distributing material which YOU have generated yourself is different from material which others have generated.

No. Intellectual "property" is completely different from traditional, physical property. Indefinitely and effortlessly replicating physical objects is not possible without divine intervention, so that's a fundamental difference which you -and the rest of the defenders of IP- have yet to incorporate into the notion assimilating both. There may be entitlement issues related to exploitation rights common to both, but "intellectual property" is a perversion, both semantic and intellectual, as the meaning behind the expression is that ideas can be owned.

 

It is also not a very compelling argument that not treating IP the same as regular property will result in intellectual production being harmed, as evidenced by -heh- the amount of free content being produced since the advent of the Internets... as well as the ridiculous and ever-increasing profits of the entertainment industry.

 

Sorry old boy, but this is just plain old greed no matter what light you paint it in.

 

As for the WP blackdown itself, well. Funny how decentralized, (mostly) leaderless associations or movements can have an effect on the rules governing everyone, working outside of the established (read: cooked) channels. Sounds almost like *gasp* people taking an active interest in their own governance, on specific matters. God forbid!

Edited January 21, 2012 by 213374U

[Oblarg]

Well, I was initially peeved at this MegaUpload situation. That is, until I read the actual indictment, at which point it became abundantly clear that their top executives were shameless criminals and seizure of the domain name was probably justified.

 

I do not wholly condemn end-user piracy, but piracy for profit is despicable, and those guys quite clearly deserve to be in jail.

[Gorgon]

Lets not kid ourselves. The only reason to try to regulate the internet is an excuse to consolidate the power of information from the hands of the many to the hands of the few.

 

Isn't that an anarchist's view of all law, though?

It's theoretically possible to achieve almost complete compliance on the web with surveilance and enforcement, much more so than in the physical world owing to the relative efficiency of a completely digital system. That would be a first in human history, I'm not sure it's at all desireable. I guess I'm worried about momentum even though the problem has barely manifested itself as of yet.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Gorgon