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.
  • #71
Evo said:
But it's not "censorship".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

A great deal of the criticism surrounds the fact that entire websites can be taken offline before the owners have an opportunity to repeal, and the burden of proof rests largely on them. The fear is, one, that this makes it trivially easy for copyright holders to step beyond the bounds of their copyright and suppress mention of their work arbitrarily, and two, that the system can be easily exploited by anyone to take any website off the air simply by signing up and posting a copyrighted image.

It provides a legal mechanism for private citizens and corporate entities to engage in censorship.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
jhae2.718 said:
Suppose I posted how to remove copy protection of DVDs to make backup copies, which is technically copyright infringement. If that were removed according to SOPA/PIPA (under anti-circumvention proceedings) wouldn't that be:
No, it would be illegal, and removing illegal activities is not censorship.
 
  • #73
Evo said:
No, it would be illegal, and removing illegal activities is not censorship.

If I were to outlaw Christianity, would that mean that my silencing any mention of God would not constitute censorship?
 
  • #74
Number Nine said:
If I were to outlaw Christianity, would that mean that my silencing any mention of God would not constitute censorship?
And this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting online property rights, so you posted it why? It has nothing to do with the topic.
 
  • #75
Evo said:
No, it would be illegal, and removing illegal activities is not censorship.

Going along a different line, what would the removal of Tor, an anonymity network originally developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory to avoid Internet censorship, under SOPA/PIPA be considered? What happens when a company makes an infringement claim against a researcher to prevent a security vulnerability or other unflattering revelation, as was done under DMCA?

I'd like to get away from the argument over the semantics of censorship and back to SOPA*. The practical danger in these bills is the vague language open to interpretation. Having poorly defined terminology gives a lot of leeway to those claiming copyright infringement.


*This thread seems to have moved from the titular Wikipedia blackout to a general discussion of SOPA/PIPA. Perhaps we should make this the P&WA SOPA thread?
 
  • #76
Evo said:
No, it would be illegal, and removing illegal activities is not censorship.

Yes, it is censorship. It is illegal for ABC, CBS, or NBC to broadcast the word "f**k" during daylight hours. Those words are censored (in other words, those illegal activities are removed). That is censorship.

SOPA and PIPA would censor entire websites for the action of its users.

To give you a more concrete example, if this law passes, PF might need to delete its youtube thread in general discussion. If a user posts a youtube video that is has a copyright violation (or is even accused of a copyright violation), PF could be shut down.

Do you feel that Greg should be responsible for the actions of a PF user? Right now, the current anti-piracy law, DCMA, has a "safe harbor" provision which prevents the owners of websites from being punished for the actions of its users. SOPA and PIPA would remove such protections.

That is why Wikipedia is so against this legislation. They have user-created content, and would now be held personally responsible for the actions of their users.

Evo, you seem to be going out of your way to avoid discussion about these particular bills, and instead are just talking generally about the importance of copyrights. That's not what this thread is about. Most of us agree that copyright violation is a crime, much like speeding is a crime. In fact, I'd argue that speeding is even worse of a crime, because speeding kills people. But, we don't shut down Ford because their Mustang car can far exceed the speed limit. Likewise, we shouldn't punish websites (like PF or Wikipedia) for being a platform which could potentially be used to violate a copyright.
 
  • #77
Jack21222 said:
To give you a more concrete example, if this law passes, PF might need to delete its youtube thread in general discussion. If a user posts a youtube video that is has a copyright violation (or is even accused of a copyright violation), PF could be shut down.

This itself would be a de facto censorship of everything anyone posted to Physics Forums.
 
  • #78
Jack21222 said:
Most of us agree that copyright violation is a crime

Do most of us agree?
I accepted that as a given, but seeing this thread makes me wonder.

It seems that it is advocated that copyright violation cannot be prevented on the internet (at least in some cases) and that we should not try to.
If this is accepted, copyright infringement, in some cases, would no longer be a crime.
 
  • #79
jhae2.718 said:
This itself would be a de facto censorship of everything anyone posted to Physics Forums.
This has been discussed and decided it is youtube's responsibility to make sure that they meet their obligations to legal copyright. This is why you will often find broken links where youtube has removed the content. We patrol our website for what our member's post and our rules on copyright violations being illegal and not allowed are very clear.
 
  • #80
I like Serena said:
Do most of us agree?
I accepted that as a given, but seeing this thread makes me wonder.

There is a sizable group on the Internet that will pirate anything. This is also a group that would never buy anything they could not pirate. There's also a group of people who have declared that file sharing is their religion.
I like Serena said:
It seems that it is advocated that copyright violation cannot be prevented on the internet (at least in some cases) and that we should not try to.

If this is accepted, copyright infringement, in some cases, would no longer be a crime.

The DMCA already accomplishes this to a large degree. SOPA/PIPA extend the rights of copyright holders at the expense of everyone else. It is ridiculous to give a group the power to take down an entire domain for minor copyright infringements. The rights holder can currently issue takedown notices for the material to be removed, and then take further action if this is not complied with. Under SOPA as originally written--and intended--the rights holder would essentially take off and nuke the site from orbit.

As a practical matter, it is impossible to prevent copyright infringement. No matter what blocking techniques or actions are taken, copyright infringers will adapt and move on. The problem rights holders have is that they are reactive. They must respond to what copyright infringers do. They'll never be able to prevent file sharing, unless they either destroy the Internet or Turing-complete computers.

So, the question becomes: do we give up trying to stop infringement to protect the additional (speculative) profits of rights infringers at the expense of the majority of people, who do not share files or infringe copyrights, or do we try alternative measures such as giving people incentives to purchase products?

Government regulation is not the answer here.
 
  • #81
Evo said:
This has been discussed and decided it is youtube's responsibility to make sure that they meet their obligations to legal copyright. This why you will often find broken links where youtube has removed the content. We patrol our website for what our member's post and our rules on copyright violations being illegal and not allowed are very clear.

Irrelevant. You would still be linking to copyright infringing materials. Similarly, Google would be responsible for patrolling ever single link they served for copyright infringement. Only ad providers and payment networks have "no duty to monitor" under the bill. See H.R. 3261, Title I, § 102.c.
 
  • #82
Evo said:
This has been discussed and decided it is youtube's responsibility to make sure that they meet their obligations to legal copyright. This why you will often find broken links where youtube has removed the contnt. We patrol our website for what our member's post.

And if a copyright holder feels Youtube or PF is taking too long to remove a copyright infringement (or even a perceived copyright infringement: See Universal Music Group's takedown of a song made for Megaupload [1]), do you feel that the copyright holder should have the entire website taken offline, with the burden of proof on the website to be reinstated?
 
  • #83
Jack21222 said:
Evo, you seem to be going out of your way to avoid discussion about these particular bills, and instead are just talking generally about the importance of copyrights. That's not what this thread is about. Most of us agree that copyright violation is a crime, much like speeding is a crime. In fact, I'd argue that speeding is even worse of a crime, because speeding kills people. But, we don't shut down Ford because their Mustang car can far exceed the speed limit. Likewise, we shouldn't punish websites (like PF or Wikipedia) for being a platform which could potentially be used to violate a copyright.
I've spoken of copyrights, and intellectual property rights, which is what the bills are meant to protect. I've posted about the bills. Please post specific examples where I
seem to be going out of your way to avoid discussion about these particular bills
And stop the strawman fallacies.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Jack21222 said:
And if a copyright holder feels Youtube or PF is taking too long to remove a copyright infringement (or even a perceived copyright infringement: See Universal Music Group's takedown of a song made for Megaupload [1]), do you feel that the copyright holder should have the entire website taken offline, with the burden of proof on the website to be reinstated?
This is off topic. And post where I said I agreed with SOPA.
 
Last edited:
  • #85
Evo said:
This is off topic. And post where I said I agreed with SOPA.

Talking about the implications of SOPA is off topic in a thread about SOPA? But discussing copyrights in general isn't off-topic? Evo, you usually make more sense than this.

EDIT: I never said you agreed with SOPA. To claim that I did is a strawman of your own. I said you were avoiding discussion of the bill. You keep defending the intention of the bill, but the bill goes far beyond its ostensible intentions.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
I'm beginning to remember why I hate P&WA...time to get the popcorn.
duty_calls.png

xkcd is licensed under CC-BY-NC 2.5. This usage is for noncommercial purposes and is attributed to: http://www.xkcd.com/386[/I][/COLOR] [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Evo said:
And this has absolutely nothing to do with protecting online property rights, so you posted it why? It has nothing to do with the topic.

It is directly relevant to your post. You denied that the bill constitutes censorship because silencing the communication of illegal information is not censorship. Taking your argument to its logical extreme is perfectly legitimate. If what you said is true, then it is necessarily true that any speech that is declared to be illegal can be silenced without such a thing being considered censorship. The absurdity of that position suggests that your claim is absurd. Since your claim was relevant to the thread (otherwise, why would you have posted it?), it follows that my response was relevant.
 
  • #89
Soooo glad I got out of this thread before it got crazy.
 
  • #90
Char. Limit said:
Soooo glad I got out of this thread before it got crazy.

On the contrary, it's tremendously entertaining. Just sit back, get some popcorn, and enjoy the show.
 
  • #91
jhae2.718 said:
On the contrary, it's tremendously entertaining. Just sit back, get some popcorn, and enjoy the show.

Oh, of course it's entertaining... unless you're one of the gladiators.
 
  • #92
Char. Limit said:
Soooo glad I got out of this thread before it got crazy.

Has the blackout happened yet? They should do that every night about the same time, such that I know when to go to bed. :smile:
 
  • #93
OmCheeto said:
Has the blackout happened yet? They should do that every night about the same time, such that I know when to go to bed. :smile:

You've got half an hour. Oh, I can't wait to hear the shrieks of panic as millions of dumb teenagers try to go to Wikipedia for help to find out they can't...
 
  • #94
Char. Limit said:
You've got half an hour. Oh, I can't wait to hear the shrieks of panic as millions of dumb teenagers try to go to Wikipedia for help to find out they can't...

:rofl: It will be a good day to assign a take-home essay assignment and not have to check if they plagiarized Wikipedia.

I do agree there are problems with the implementation of SOPA, particularly with not having any requirement for notification or appeal prior to shutting down a site. I have no problem with enforcing copyright laws and holding website owners responsible for the content on their site, just a problem when there's no due process prior to shutting down the site. Not every infringement claim gets held up in court.

On the other hand, I really don't know what Wikipedia thinks they will accomplish with this stunt of theirs. The world existed before Wikipedia and at best, this seems like it might demonstrate we can also still survive without it now. I think they'll do more to hurt themselves than anyone else.
 
  • #95
Char. Limit said:
You've got half an hour. Oh, I can't wait to hear the shrieks of panic as millions of dumb teenagers try to go to Wikipedia for help to find out they can't...

Eek!

Everyone save and upload your most important wiki page to your homepage.

That way, we'll know what's what in the morning.

I'll start!

wiki

uh oh.

I see bugs in the source code in this idea.

Time for bed.

:eek:
 
  • #96
Moonbear said:
On the other hand, I really don't know what Wikipedia thinks they will accomplish with this stunt of theirs. The world existed before Wikipedia and at best, this seems like it might demonstrate we can also still survive without it now. I think they'll do more to hurt themselves than anyone else.

It'll bring attention to the issue, and possibly get people to call their representatives. I guarantee there will be news stories on the protest, too.
 
  • #97
Moonbear said:
On the other hand, I really don't know what Wikipedia thinks they will accomplish with this stunt of theirs. The world existed before Wikipedia and at best, this seems like it might demonstrate we can also still survive without it now. I think they'll do more to hurt themselves than anyone else.

They show that they are against.

They show what might happen if someone posted copyrighted material on wikipedia.

If I understand correctly the owners of wikipedia could be held personally accountable for copyright infringements, which might force them to take wikipedia offline themselves.


It should give people something to think about.
 
  • #98
Jack21222 said:
It'll bring attention to the issue, and possibly get people to call their representatives. I guarantee there will be news stories on the protest, too.

But there have already been news stories on it, and anyone who cares enough to call their representatives probably already has. I don't think it's going to bring the issue more attention than it's already gotten; it's already been all over the news, spread around Facebook, etc.
 
  • #99
I like Serena said:
They show that they are against.
Okay, but they don't need to go offline to show that.

They show what might happen if someone posted copyrighted material on wikipedia.
Yes, but at the risk that people realize they can get the information in other ways, and it's not really the end of the world if they can't access Wikipedia.

If I understand correctly the owners of wikipedia could be held personally accountable for copyright infringements, which might force them to take wikipedia offline themselves.
I have no problem with that aspect. If the material IS infringing on someone else's work, the owners ARE ultimately responsible. It's sort of like the driver of the car is responsible if there are drugs in their vehicle when they get caught by the cops, even if it was a "friend" who left them there. My only concern is they have an opportunity to remedy the problem by removing the copyrighted works as soon as it is brought to their attention, but there are too many sites that just want to flaunt the law and post anything and everything, even if it isn't theirs to post. If it is left to them to take the site offline to ameliorate a problem, that's how it should be.


It should give people something to think about.
In what way? Seems more like a child throwing a temper tantrum...doesn't give anything to think about other than to ignore the child until they get over themselves.
 
  • #100
Moonbear said:
Okay, but they don't need to go offline to show that.

Actually... It's all my fault.

I was the one that didn't donate $5 before midnight.

:cry:
 
  • #101
Moonbear said:
Yes, but at the risk that people realize they can get the information in other ways, and it's not really the end of the world if they can't access Wikipedia.

I believe there is world shifting trend that on the internet volunteers labor to help people around the world without thought of profit.
Wikipedia is a strong example of this, and it already is the number one encyclopedic resource.
I for one think this is a good trend.

It would be a bad thing if volunteer initiatives like wikipedia were forcibly shut down, or if the founders themselves would shut it down in fear of persecution.

It's not the end of the world, but wikipedia would certainly be missed.
 
  • #102
Check out Google there is a petition drive against the laws. A big black rectangle covers the word GOOGLE. Click on the box and the petition form opens.
 
  • #103
And actually, I think that's a very pretty image.
wikiblackout20120117.2100.jpg

I'm of the B&W era.

Infinite shades of grey, can be so beautiful.

Night all! :smile:
 
  • #104
If anyone is concerned, you can simply disable javascript or press your browsers stop button before the wikipedia censor page loads to access the site during the blackout.
 
  • #105
Google:
sopa12_hp.png


Google said:
Tell Congress: https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<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