Wikipedia is Down

[jbergey22]

For 24 hours in protest of SOPA and PIPA.

They are asking that people contact their local reps in protest of these proposed bills.

Call your elected officials.
Tell them you are their constituent, and you oppose SOPA and PIPA.
Why?
SOPA and PIPA put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Foreign sites will be blacklisted, which means they won't show up in major search engines. SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.
In a world in which politicians regulate the Internet based on the influence of big money, Wikipedia — and sites like it — cannot survive.
Congress says it's trying to protect the rights of copyright owners, but the "cure" that SOPA and PIPA represent is worse than the disease. SOPA and PIPA are not the answer: they will fatally damage the free and open Internet.

[sabotai]

FWIW, in case you still want to access Wikipedia:

Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?

The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency. The English Wikipedia will be accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. Because the protest message is powered by JavaScript, it's also possible to view Wikipedia by completely disabling JavaScript in your browser.

[CrimsonFox]

google isn't really down but they are simulating "downness". Most major sites are doing this. and requesting same. Not a bad idea.

[CrimsonFox]

Who in Congress Supports SOPA and PIPA/PROTECT-IP? | SOPA Opera | ProPublica

[rowech]

Can someone explain why this has become such a big deal? I'm not sure what all is packed into this bill and if it's more than what it is presented as. Should we not protect people's intellectual property? Is that what people are fighting -- that we should be allowed to get whatever? Or is it, that the government would then have the right to filter/block certain sites outside of the country who do this and while fine in theory it gives them an awful lot of power?

[Grover]

Good read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...HG6P_blog.html

[CraigSca]

What's interesting to me is that the support (or lack thereof) for this does NOT run down party lines. This is the most bi-partisan bill I've ever seen!

[Grover]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

What's interesting to me is that the support (or lack thereof) for this does NOT run down party lines. This is the most bi-partisan bill I've ever seen!

This. Would you ever expect to see Pelosi and Bachmann on the same side of anything?

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by rowech

Can someone explain why this has become such a big deal? I'm not sure what all is packed into this bill and if it's more than what it is presented as. Should we not protect people's intellectual property? Is that what people are fighting -- that we should be allowed to get whatever? Or is it, that the government would then have the right to filter/block certain sites outside of the country who do this and while fine in theory it gives them an awful lot of power?

Here's an article which explains the basics: Understanding SOPA: A Simple Q&A for Understanding the Online Piracy Debate - WSJ.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Somehow, much to Wiki's dismay I'm sure, I suspect we'll all survive the day.

I was both shocked & pleased to see that some of the Wiki contributing editors were unhappy with today's stunt.

http://onlineathens.com/national-new...anned-blackout

[CrimsonFox]

These 61 Senators are refusing to meet with their constituents before the critical Jan 24 vote on PIPA/SOPA. Oh Reddit, can you call them? : politics

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

[Grammaticus]

Part of the concerns revolve around our agreement to do the same thing for other countries that support intellectual property rights. If a foreign country targets a site, there is a mechanism for the government to shut down a site without legal due process. I basically simplified that. There are articles that layout the issues pretty good. This legislation is basically good intentions, but very poorly executed.

There are already laws that protect intellectual property rights. The intellectual property rights owners and the government are just too lazy to go through the process.

[JPhillips]

It won't stop piracy, but it will allow corporations to shut down and sue websites. It's another example of government as private security for the rich.

[Barkeep49]

I think Piracy is wrong. When I was 18 and a user of Napster, I decided that Piracy was wrong and have sworn off piracy ever since.

That said, I don't think we need another anti-piracy law. The law is clear. Equally clear is that there is plenty of fantastic content creation happening right now. I don't think SOPA is addressing anything but a need for companies to get rich. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad companies can get rich from creating great stuff, but that's not what justifies government regulation and interference.

[ISiddiqui]

On the Wyden interview on Washington Post, here I think is the biggest issue:

EK: As I understand it, another element of these bills is that they would move the burden of policing content to the Web sites themselves. Right now, YouTube, if alerted to pirated content, needs to get it down. Under SOPA and PIPA, YouTube would be responsible for making sure it never goes up in the first place, and liable if they missed a video.
RW: You are describing what I call the “turn Web sites into Web cops” provision. This is a provision that has raised concern about what this is going to mean for innovation. If you’re a small Web site trying to get off the ground and you look at that provision, you put people through this kind of legal burden, which will mean a significant amount of money for anyone trying something new, it will do a lot of damage to innovation. That’s one reason the venture capital folks are speaking out.
EK: This also seems to favor the big rather than the small. YouTube has a legal department now, and Google’s resources are backing them. They could maybe survive this. A start-up competitor to YouTube couldn’t.
RW: You got it. That site won’t be funded. And it gets to the question of capitalistic approaches. Two people in a garage will have to become two people in a garage with a fleet of lawyers upstairs. The other side of this is private right of action, which will allow the big players you’re talking about to swamp Web sites with lawsuits.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

FWIW, in case you still want to access Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia community, as part of their request to the Wikimedia Foundation to carry out this protest, asked us to ensure that we make English Wikipedia accessible in some way during an emergency.

Anybody know what would constitute a Wikipedia emergency?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Anybody know what would constitute a Wikipedia emergency?

Deadline on a term paper.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I don't think SOPA is addressing anything but a need for companies to get rich.

I think the flip-side to this is that it will not only address the need for "companies to get rich", but will also allow said companies to continue to employ their workers and possibly expand.

I think there are probably other ways to decrease the rate of piracy, but it just seems odd to me to chastise companies for trying to get paid for services rendered.

[Subby]

My 3rd grader heard about SOPA and without any input or prompting from his mother or me, did some research and wrote a letter to his congressman about it. Then he coerced his twin brother into co-signing.

He is very concerned about the future of Minecraft videos on Youtube.

[ISiddiqui]

So SOPA stanks, LOL. That's adorable

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

but it just seems odd to me to chastise companies for trying to get paid for services rendered.

It's the new American way, haven't you been paying attention?

You could probably Google that up and get an explanation from a Wiki pa ... oh, wait.

[Rizon]

Wikipedia is still up (not sure when it's supposed to be down) in case anyone is interesting in knowing all there is to know about "LOL".

[Rizon]

Here is the list of websites protesting Soapa.

Major sites on there such as "LiveLocalCard.com", "Occupybirmingham" and "CelebrityMagnet". Oh, and not sure what we will all do without this guy's facebook page for a day.

So sad

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

google isn't really down but they are simulating "downness". Most major sites are doing this. and requesting same. Not a bad idea.

Oh no! When I went to google.com, I couldn't tell if I was on google.com!

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

... but it just seems odd to me to chastise companies for trying to get paid for services rendered.

I create content online that I get paid for, and that people sometimes steal and/or use without permission. That's wrong, it's annoying, and it takes money directly out of my pocket.

That said, if I found those people, drove up to their house, and threw a bomb through their front window, I'd absolutely deserve to be "chastised for trying to get paid". Trying to get paid is wonderful, but only if your attempt is a.) within reason and b.) likely to actually work in the first place. These bills fail on both accounts.

[Ksyrup]

I really haven't paid any attention to this stuff at all, but I do know one thing: I now have a craving for sopapilla.

[RendeR]

The single biggest problem with both SOPA and PIPA is the vagueness with which they are written. passing either of these bills creates an immediate slope the slipperiness of which we have never seen before.

These bills are nothing more than big corporations creating a systemic wiping clean of anything they don't want available or even think they might not want available.

As BK stated, this is legal laziness and Government pandering to big money, nothing more.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It's pretty obviously a flawed bill if it makes the DMCA provisions look completely reasonable.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

That said, if I found those people, drove up to their house, and threw a bomb through their front window, I'd absolutely deserve to be "chastised for trying to get paid".

Depends upon what they stole afaic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

Can someone explain why this has become such a big deal? I'm not sure what all is packed into this bill and if it's more than what it is presented as. Should we not protect people's intellectual property? Is that what people are fighting -- that we should be allowed to get whatever? Or is it, that the government would then have the right to filter/block certain sites outside of the country who do this and while fine in theory it gives them an awful lot of power?

Basically it's a big deal because of the bolded. Except as I understand it it's more that the government would have the right to delegate filtering/blocking to private companies too I think? There's some skeezy bit to it like that I believe.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Anybody know what would constitute a Wikipedia emergency?

I think Google going down would be worse. We might have to use Bing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If sites exercised a reasonable amount of responsibility, government involvement in this would not be necessary. Alas ...

[molson]

I haven't read the legislation at all but the U.S has always understandably struggled with the concept of law and borders in a world where the borders are disappearing. Is that really all there is to it - the U.S. shouldn't be able to do anything at all about a company in the Caribbean distributing mass amounts of pirated copyrighted material to the U.S.? That sounds like an antiquated concept my grandfather would come up with. Now, maybe this legislation overreaches even that, I have no idea, but I believe there must be a legal remedy to confront that kind of copyright infringement that can keep up with the pirates (it isn't practical to just engage in a years-long court battle, when the website can just change their name by one letter and continue doing what they're doing).

[cody8200]

The main problem with SOPA is it allows websites to be taken down without due process. It makes user content nearly impossible to allow for small/upstart company's that don't have the ability to check and see what is being done by every one of their users. Basically if this was implemented 5-10 years ago, Facebook, Youtube and many other sites like Reddit would have never have been invented or utilized which means millions of dollars of lost revenue and and a large number of high paying jobs would not exist. It also requires that search engines make the sites impossible to find and that the ISP's limit the sites that are on the blacklist from even being shown to its users.

There are already laws in effect to stop piracy. If a company feels like it is worth the time and money to make it happen, then they should sue and go through the process of protecting their copyright through normal means. What I think is funny is that this will be the thing the public (especially younger people) care about more than any other thing in the coming year. I think the millions of people signing the petition and writing their legislators are all thinking the same thing - why f*ck with something that isn't broken? Everything else the government touches turns into a bloated piece of crap and after hearing the main lobbyist behind the bill are the RIAA, the MPAA and the Chamber of Commerce - it is easy to see why so many politicians support it and so few of their constituents do. Money.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If sites exercised a reasonable amount of responsibility, government involvement in this would not be necessary. Alas ...

Jon,

This site may not even exist if this legislation went into effect. Every one of those copyrighted images we take from Google Images and use on the Hot or Not segment are copyright infringements. The company with the rights could simply tell the judge he would like the site taken down and that would be it. The search engines would no longer find it. The ISP would block it from being accessible. All because we like to see a few hot pictures of Anne Hathaway or whoever the hell it is this week. And that is what this is really about. Something as stupid as a picture being shown on a website can constitute grounds for the site to be taken down.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cody8200

If a company feels like it is worth the time and money to make it happen, then they should sue and go through the process of protecting their copyright through normal means.

Are companies really able to protect their copyrights by launching expensive lawsuits against against mysterious entities in other countries who can just change website names and locations instantly? Is it just tough shit for the copyright providers because the pirates have found a crime that the courts are ill equipped to deal with? It seems to me that when the criminal is able to outmaneuver justice and continue being criminals, the law enforcement does have to change their approach. I don't know if this is best solution, everyone seems to think not, but clearly an another approach needs to occur.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cody8200

Jon,

This site may not even exist if this legislation went into effect. Every one of those copyrighted images we take from Google Images and use on the Hot or Not segment are copyright infringements. The company with the rights could simply tell the judge he would like the site taken down and that would be it. The search engines would no longer find it. The ISP would block it from being accessible. All because we like to see a few hot pictures of Anne Hathaway or whoever the hell it is this week. And that is what this is really about. Something as stupid as a picture being shown on a website can constitute grounds for the site to be taken down.

I have a hunch that any new anti-piracy legislation, regardless of its reasonableness, would be attacked with cries of "THIS WILL DESTROY THE INTERNET". I just have no idea how to distinguish the unreasonable legislation from the reasonable (and I bet legislators don't either) knowing that hyperbole will be a constant.

Edit: Are we just talking about what COULD happen, assuming unlimited resources and attention? If sufficient piracy laws exist now, then in theory, all of these websites could be shut down right now, it would just take longer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cody8200

This site may not even exist if this legislation went into effect.

I'm aware of that, and I'm fine with that.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by molson

Are companies really able to protect their copyrights by launching expensive lawsuits against against mysterious entities in other countries who can just change website names and locations instantly? Is it just tough shit for the copyright providers because the pirates have found a crime that the courts are ill equipped to deal with? It seems to me that when the criminal is able to outmaneuver justice and continue being criminals, the law enforcement does have to change their approach. I don't know if this is best solution, everyone seems to think not, but clearly an another approach needs to occur.

I agree when it is international piracy are tougher but this law isn't only for international websites, it includes US based websites as well. This law is like using a jackhammer when a hammer will do.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, but what about all the SEC fanboy boards?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by cody8200

All because we like to see a few hot pictures of Anne Hathaway

Holy crap, what a waste! If we're going down, let's at least make it for something good.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Holy crap, what a waste! If we're going down, let's at least make it for something good.

Ha! One of the Not's I see. That being said, it would probably be the copyright owner of Kathy Griffin who takes us down. That woman has to maker money somehow.

[Ksyrup]

Pumpy would never do that to us.

No one should have the right to copy her face, anyway...

[JPhillips]

The bill will do very little to stop the kind of piracy it claims to be attacking. There's already examples of plug-ins that could get around a blocked address, so foreign sites devoted to piracy will still be accessible. What the bill will do is stifle content startups before they can get big enough to challenge the entertainment giants. Hollywood and RIAA aren't as concerned about stopping @1 billion in US piracy as they are protecting their businesses from new competitors.

[King of New York]

These bills are not about large, rapacious corporations attacking the peeps. They are about one set of large, rapacious corporations fighting with another set of (aspirationally) large, rapacious corporations, over the fact that the second set of corporations makes its money by taking what the first set of corporations makes, distributing it, and then collecting revenue from advertising that it does not share with the content producers, which is to say, the people who did the actual work. The bills may be flawed, but I find myself sympthizing more with the (loathsome) entertaiment industry than with YouTube over this one.

[Blackadar]

I can't believe that anyone here would support this shit. The biggest thing about SOPA is that it does not require an adversarial proceeding. A content company merely needs to make the allegation that you are a pirate site, and your lose your domain name, with no ability to ever reclaim it. Boom, done, you're gone. No hearing, no judge, no ability to dispute the allegation in court, it's just gone.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The bill will do very little to stop the kind of piracy it claims to be attacking. There's already examples of plug-ins that could get around a blocked address, so foreign sites devoted to piracy will still be accessible. What the bill will do is stifle content startups before they can get big enough to challenge the entertainment giants. Hollywood and RIAA aren't as concerned about stopping @1 billion in US piracy as they are protecting their businesses from new competitors.

I always find this part of the discussion interesting. People intent on doing bad things are always going to be smarter and more motivated than people trying to stop them from doing bad things. So in reality, measures like this just make it harder for other people to get access in ways that they are supposed to be able to use. The flip-side is that if you don't do anything, you are almost condoning people doing bad things. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I find it an interesting discussion.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I can't believe that anyone here would support this shit. The biggest thing about SOPA is that it does not require an adversarial proceeding. A content company merely needs to make the allegation that you are a pirate site, and your lose your domain name, with no ability to ever reclaim it. Boom, done, you're gone. No hearing, no judge, no ability to dispute the allegation in court, it's just gone.

Yeah, I don't like knowing that members of FOFC support this bill. I want content creators to get paid, but from what I understand of this bill, it's way too vague and opens the door for stupid shit (as in potentially sites like reddit, fofc, and other user-submitted sites being shut down with no due process).

No I'm not American, but it will affect me too and I have no say in the bill at all.

[JediKooter]

Well damn! When did congress solve that debt problem and the economy and unemployment? I must have slept right through it. I see now they are moving on to more important issues to tackle.

Piracy my ass. This bill is all about censorship disguised in the sheeps clothing of piracy, plain and simple.

[Rizon]

Anyone know when Wikipedia is going to be down? I'm currently reading about midgets and don't want to lose my place.