Wikipedia Calls for Anti-SOPA Blackout Jan 18

  • News
  • Thread starter Hurkyl
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Wikipedia
In summary: The blocking of entire domains-The removal of material from a site-The blocking of specific pages on a siteWikipedia sees this as a huge problem, because they would be unable toremove any of the material that violates copyright, and would be at the mercy of the government.In summary, Wikipedia is protesting a proposed law that would allow the government to block websites accused of copyright infringement. They feel that the law would severely harm the website, and that it would be unable to remove any of the material that violates copyright. Many other websites are also participating in the blackout.
  • #211
Small comfort to the owner of the copyright.

I can't help but feeling your are simply trolling. Instead of addressing the meat of anything I've said, you are taking quick potshots.

My point was that any numbers that say $x lost to the economy/$y dollars lost in tax revenue,z jobs destroyed should be immediately suspicious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
no methodology, bleeding heart global crisis... makes me suspect bias research.
 
  • #213
I see a lack of reasonable discussion from at least one side here. This thread needs to be locked. Maybe someday we can have a reasonable discussion, from both sides, about piracy.
 
  • #214
Char. Limit said:
I see a lack of reasonable discussion from at least one side here. This thread needs to be locked. Maybe someday we can have a reasonable discussion, from both sides, about piracy.

Simply report the offending posters to the moderators :)
 
  • #215
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/396033_3172094104461_1328786850_3386526_1964119875_n.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #216
ParticleGrl said:
My point was that any numbers that say $x lost to the economy/$y dollars lost in tax revenue,z jobs destroyed should be immediately suspicious.
Your points make sense to me. Here's a thought:
Maybe the net effect of internet piracy of movies and music is that it actually benefits the general economy. This conjecture is based on the assumptions that (1) a significant portion of the revenues from sales of dvd's and cd's is kept in the financial sector, and (2) virtually all of the money saved by downloaders of pirated stuff is spent in the general economy.
 
  • #217
ThomasT said:
This conjecture is based on the assumptions that (1) a significant portion of the revenues from sales of dvd's and cd's is kept in the financial sector

Do you mean entertainment sector, rather than financial sector? If you mean financial, why do you believe this?

Its not obvious to me that having less money in the hands of piraters/more money in the hands of equity holders in the entertainment industry is somehow worse overall. Its just different. Having less grocery store workers and more entertainment workers isn't obviously bad, but (and this is important) having more grocery store workers and less entertainment workers isn't obviously bad. If we ever start suffering from a lack of entertainment, we will certainly need to push more people into that sector. Cross that bridge when we come to it, its not now.

The problem with trying to police IP too strictly is that you end up with less overall money in entertainment + everywhere else. That gets siphoned off to pay the IP police. If there is no problem that needs solving why should we do this?
 
  • #218
ParticleGrl said:
Do you mean entertainment sector, rather than financial sector? If you mean financial, why do you believe this?
I meant financial. The money spent in the entertainment sector wrt labor, materials, technology, etc. is mostly, I would suppose, eventually entering and positively affecting the general economy. But I'm also assuming that a (significant) portion of the profits from a dvd or cd are invested in the financial sector.

ParticleGrl said:
Its not obvious to me that having less money in the hands of piraters/more money in the hands of equity holders in the entertainment industry is somehow worse overall.
I'm assuming that piraters spend a greater percentage of their liquid assets in the general economy than do equity holders in the entertainment industry -- and that this translates to more money in the general economy.

ParticleGrl said:
Having less grocery store workers and more entertainment workers isn't obviously bad, but (and this is important) having more grocery store workers and less entertainment workers isn't obviously bad. If we ever start suffering from a lack of entertainment, we will certainly need to push more people into that sector. Cross that bridge when we come to it, its not now.
I don't think that we're going to have to worry about a lack of entertainment. My take is that the entertainment industry hasn't really suffered from internet piracy. If revenues are down, then maybe that's mostly attributable to a downturn in the general economy.

Maybe the entertainment industry will make more money if all internet pirating is shut down. It's an empirical question, but, imho, not a particularly interesting or important one. Most of the, possible, increased revenues won't be going to the creative artists anyway, but to the big corporations that control them.

ParticleGrl said:
The problem with trying to police IP too strictly is that you end up with less overall money in entertainment + everywhere else.
I don't think that the policing/enforcement of internet piracy is so much a matter of money as of priorities. Imho, it's just way way down on the list. But, apparently, the lobbying money of the entertainment industry has been well spent so far. Pressure has been put on the DoJ to pay attention to this problem, and it's responding predictably.

I don't think that strictly policing IP necessarily means less money in the general economy. I do think that more money spent on dvd's and cd's means less money in the general economy.
 
  • #219
Hurkyl said:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/01/16/wikipedias-community-calls-for-anti-sopa-blackout-january-18/

Very unfortunate -- they lose a lot of standing in my own eyes.

When I see things like this, one of the first things I look for is whether they are taking a reasonable position, or if they are taking an infeasible cartoonish position.

All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms ... We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.



and this quote looks like they're taking the cartoon position: that any laws and regulation regarding the internet should be rejected on pure principle.



I don't know anything about the particular laws they're protesting -- and their stated reasons for protest do not fill me with confidence that their protest has merit. In fact, such extreme positions have a counter-productive effect from me -- they've pushed me from apathy to actually feeling antagonistic to their cause.

I really hope that the editors just dropped the ball on this one, rather than this being a sign of Wikipedia's political direction...

Hi Hurkyl:smile: I think that Wikipedia along with quite a few other organizations are protesting for *good* reason. One thing is that it might shut down online libraries.:mad: The more I think about it that would mean to me the public wouldn't have access to the Library of Congress whose mission is: "The Library's mission is to support the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and to further the progress of knowledge and creativity for the benefit of the American people."(1) And take a peek at the Library link (url) below as noted in my #2. It has a section on Film and Sound Recordings. It makes me wonder what the heck is going on. Honestly, I see a conflict of interest regarding what Congress was attempting to do but thank goodness the President stepped in right away and put a hold on that stuff for the time being.

1. http://www.loc.gov/about/mission.html

2. http://www.loc.gov/index.html
###

Here's a very impressive website that lists organizations and people opposing SOPA and PIPA: 'List of Those Expressing Concern With SOPA & PIPA'
http://www.cdt.org/report/list-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa
 
Last edited:
  • #220
All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms ... We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.

I am not sure you should describe that as 'cartoonish,' not all principles can be disregarded that easily. Beside the pragmatic consequences, I too do feel that information should be 'maximally free.' Because I believe an open unregulated Internet is a great asset for humanity. If that means giving up on copyright law, I personally couldn't care less. I don't even think ideas should be patented. Artists will manage to make money in another manner no matter what.
 
  • #221
The more I think about it that would mean to me the public wouldn't have access to the Library of Congress

Let's not go overboard here. There's no way the Attorney General decides to shut down the Library of Congress's website, even if he's given the power to do so
 
  • #222
Office_Shredder said:
Let's not go overboard here. There's no way the Attorney General decides to shut down the Library of Congress's website, even if he's given the power to do so

In the future please don't quote-mine me!

MarcoD said:
I am not sure you should describe that as 'cartoonish,' not all principles can be disregarded that easily. Beside the pragmatic consequences, I too do feel that information should be 'maximally free.' Because I believe an open unregulated Internet is a great asset for humanity. If that means giving up on copyright law, I personally couldn't care less. I don't even think ideas should be patented. Artists will manage to make money in another manner no matter what.

MarcoD, the quote you are referring to isn't on the link(url) website that Hurkyl
seemed to imply within his statement. Also, I do not support people who think it is ok 'giving up on copyright law' as you mention, nor do I think it wise to be stealing a person's idea. Idea's pertain to scientific articles which
oftentimes appear in peer-reviewed journals. I don't have a problem using those articles online as long as I name the author, subject matter, and link (url) to the article.
 
Last edited:
  • #223
MarcoD said:
I am not sure you should describe that as 'cartoonish,' not all principles can be disregarded that easily. Beside the pragmatic consequences, I too do feel that information should be 'maximally free.' Because I believe an open unregulated Internet is a great asset for humanity. If that means giving up on copyright law, I personally couldn't care less. I don't even think ideas should be patented. Artists will manage to make money in another manner no matter what.
If no one can make a living off of their work, not many would be able to afford to work for free. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people not be paid for what they do.

You also forgot to show which post you are quoting.
 
  • #224
Evo said:
If no one can make a living off of their work, not many would be able to afford to work for free. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people not be paid for what they do.
But they need to adapt and evolve with the market to stay competitive at getting that living. I had a boss that would always tell me to think like the customer and then I'll know how to sell to them. The bottom line is that it's the consumer's money. Earn it.
 
  • #225
ginru said:
But they need to adapt and evolve with the market to stay competitive at getting that living.
The comment was that everything on the internet should be free, and that includes a person's work that was placed there illegally without their consent. Just how do you propose that the artist, writer, etc... "adapt and evolve with the market to stay competitive at getting that living" when their work is illegally being giving away?

The bottom line is that it's the consumer's money. Earn it.
Earn it how after it's been illegally given away?
 
  • #226
Evo said:
The comment was that everything on the internet should be free, and that includes a person's work that was placed there illegally without their consent. Just how do you propose that the artist, writer, etc... "adapt and evolve with the market to stay competitive at getting that living" when their work is illegally being giving away?
I said before that it's the fan following that holds the greatest value and it's through this base that you can make money from advertising, endorsements, donations, touring, club merchandise, etc. IMO, both the artists and the consumers are empowered by the web's freedom while it's the old-school, talentless middleman that gets the short end of the stick. So once you establish that fan following (through free distribution of your foundation work, perhaps), then you can make money in a variety of ways but you have to keep the interest of those fans as many creative folk on Youtube must do. I think networking and collaborating with other artists/creators to overlap fan bases while maintaining steady buzz is becoming much more essential in such a dynamic system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #227
ParticleGrl said:
There is actually a tremendous difference between the two. Theft deprives someone of a good, copyright infringement does not. If I break into a bookstore and steal a bunch of books, or break into a Best Buy and take a bunch of software, the store no longer has the property I stole.

Now, if I break into a bookstore and photocopy the books, or into the Best Buy and copy all the software, they still have the property. This is an important distinction. There is no material loss in infringement.
It isn't Best Buy who is most at risk here, it is Microsoft and Penguin Books. That's what how you need to structure the analogy to make them similar and what you're missing. People aren't stealing music and books from Amazon, they are copying legally bought ones and then distributing them without going through Amazon. Amazon loses some money from not being able to sell as much, but most of the loss is for the creator of the content.

Now Best Buy and the bookstore probably boughth their merchandise and thus stands to lose money from having them stolen. So the difference is that the record company and artist haven't lost anything by having the content stolen, right? Wrong. The record company spent money and the artist spent time and intellectual effort to create that content. Losing sales creates the potential for losing money on creation of the product instead of profiting.

Either way, the harm done is the same: you've deprived someone of money.
 
  • #228
Are we really arguing here over the difference between piracy and theft? They're both bad, enough said. The point of this thread was that SOPA is overly oppressive. Or maybe that was a different thread. Whatever.

With SOPA dead in the water, and PIPA joining it, does this thread really serve a purpose?
 
  • #229
Char. Limit said:
Are we really arguing here over the difference between piracy and theft? They're both bad, enough said. The point of this thread was that SOPA is overly oppressive. Or maybe that was a different thread. Whatever.

With SOPA dead in the water, and PIPA joining it, does this thread really serve a purpose?
Agreed.
 
<h2>1. What is the purpose of the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia?</h2><p>The anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia is a protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a proposed legislation that would allow the government to censor and shut down websites suspected of hosting copyrighted material. The blackout is meant to raise awareness about the potential negative impact of this legislation on free speech and the internet as a whole.</p><h2>2. When will the Wikipedia blackout take place?</h2><p>The Wikipedia blackout will take place on January 18th, 2022. This date was chosen because it marks the 10th anniversary of the first SOPA blackout in 2012, which was also led by Wikipedia.</p><h2>3. Will the entire Wikipedia site be unavailable during the blackout?</h2><p>Yes, the entire English version of Wikipedia will be unavailable during the blackout. This means that users will not be able to access any articles or information on the site. However, other language versions of Wikipedia will still be accessible.</p><h2>4. How can I still access information on Wikipedia during the blackout?</h2><p>While the English version of Wikipedia will be unavailable, users can still access information through other language versions of the site, or by using a virtual private network (VPN) to bypass the blackout. Additionally, some articles on Wikipedia may still be accessible through search engine caches.</p><h2>5. What can I do to support the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia?</h2><p>There are several ways to support the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia. You can spread awareness by sharing information about the blackout on social media and encouraging others to join the protest. You can also contact your local representatives and voice your opposition to SOPA. Finally, you can donate to organizations that are actively fighting against SOPA and other forms of internet censorship.</p>

1. What is the purpose of the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia?

The anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia is a protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a proposed legislation that would allow the government to censor and shut down websites suspected of hosting copyrighted material. The blackout is meant to raise awareness about the potential negative impact of this legislation on free speech and the internet as a whole.

2. When will the Wikipedia blackout take place?

The Wikipedia blackout will take place on January 18th, 2022. This date was chosen because it marks the 10th anniversary of the first SOPA blackout in 2012, which was also led by Wikipedia.

3. Will the entire Wikipedia site be unavailable during the blackout?

Yes, the entire English version of Wikipedia will be unavailable during the blackout. This means that users will not be able to access any articles or information on the site. However, other language versions of Wikipedia will still be accessible.

4. How can I still access information on Wikipedia during the blackout?

While the English version of Wikipedia will be unavailable, users can still access information through other language versions of the site, or by using a virtual private network (VPN) to bypass the blackout. Additionally, some articles on Wikipedia may still be accessible through search engine caches.

5. What can I do to support the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia?

There are several ways to support the anti-SOPA blackout on Wikipedia. You can spread awareness by sharing information about the blackout on social media and encouraging others to join the protest. You can also contact your local representatives and voice your opposition to SOPA. Finally, you can donate to organizations that are actively fighting against SOPA and other forms of internet censorship.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top