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.
  • #176
jasonoz said:
Wow! How did so many opinions change in one day?

I'm hoping it was public opposition against SOPA that made them change their minds, and not some kind of pay off!

The payoff is votes. The threat (implied or otherwise) that their public will not put them back into power if they don't vote the right way.

At least democracy sort of still works in America (I've given up all hope for the sham in my own country).

This ain't over, not by a long shot. I'm sure there are some mad machinations in the background by the MAFIAA. Waiting for the next salvo.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #177
What SOPA and PIPA are attempting to do is force the private sector to screen out web sites or references or links to those web sites that offer torrent seeds or direct downloads of copyrighted material in countries where copyright laws are mostly ignored. In these countries, there's virtually no retail market because the average income of the population is so low, so there's a thriving black market that includes duplication of product packaging as well as the product itself. The copyright owners can't really do anything about this situation, and they don't care unless those pirated products make their way into countries where there is a retail market.

One initial issue with these proposals were provisions that would penalize USA companies like internet service providers for not actively screening out all DNS links to web sites in foreign countries declared to be pirate sites. The DNS clause was removed from SOPA, I don't know about PIPA.

Another issue is that any website that allows its users to post text or data, such as a forum, chat room, web hosting service, or any website with a search feature (bing, google, yahoo, ...), ... , could be penalized for not screening all posted content that could contain copyrighted material or links or torrent seeds, including multiple levels of indirection, ..., to copyrighted material or a description of how to do this or reveal some some trade secret.

Youtube tries to screen uploads, but just about any song can be found on youtube and downloaded. Youtube videos could contain text or speech in a video with information on how to access copyrighted content, such as a link or a search term. In some cases, such as clips from movies or music, eventually the video will get removed, or if multiple infractions occur, the account shut down, but then another one will spring up to replace it. However one common result of including music as part of the background of a video, is that youtube places an ad on the video and sends the proceeds to the copyright owner, or to godigital whichs owns a service that auto-screens youtube videos and files "matched third party content" claims to allow those ads to be placed giving a portion of the ad revenue to the copyright owner. Apparently this system is somewhat abused, making false claims to generate revenue from those ads.

My guess is that one of wikipedia's concerns would be the cost of trying to screen every bit of content added to wikipedia. Who would maintain an up to date list of every link, DNS, text description, ... that could be used to access pirated content?
 
Last edited:
  • #178
Evo said:
Greg has said that the threads like favorite youtube videos, etc are ok, because it is youtube's obligation to remove the uploads, which they do, which is why there are so many broken links.

Right, it's fine, under current laws. I was trying to illustrate the danger of this legislation. Under SOPA, even linking to copyrighted content could theoretically be grounds for a block. This is one of the many complaints, it makes user feedback forums a liability for websites since anyone can link to anything. It opens up a hornets nest of potential censorship.
 
  • #180
He [Republican Senator Lamar Smith] said: "The online theft of American intellectual property is no different than the theft of products from a store.

Really? Has it not been made to be a theft, by modern conceptions of 'Intellectual Property'?

Theft is 'taking something, without the intention of giving it back'. How can data be 'taken' and 'not given back'?

It was once considered a mark of academic credibility to copy books (before printing). Until very recently, many composers (or, even, still - depending on your cynicism) thought nothing of taking another composer's tune and 'elaborating' on it, to call it their own. It was the performance which was the money making part, not the creation of a recording.

Misuse of someone else's IP has evolved in law, and it is not unreasonable to seek to protect the cost and effort one puts into the creation of IP. But theft is the wrong word, and is nothing at all like stealing physical property.
 
  • #181
It's not stealing the copy, it's stealing the right to copy.
 
  • #182
Jimmy Snyder said:
It's not stealing the copy, it's stealing the right to copy.

Stealing is well-defined and includes the act of denying use to the legal title holder or his agents.

IP is not stolen, it is infringed. IP offences are unlawful infringements on rights to exclusive use/sales thereof.

It is like saying that if a Policeman arrests you he has stolen your right to go about your business. That is, he has actually taken something off you. It's pedantics, maybe, but it is not right. He may have infringed your right to go about your business (he might well have done that lawfully), but he has not stolen something from you.
 
  • #183
cmb said:
He [Republican Senator Lamar Smith] said: "The online theft of American intellectual property is no different than the theft of products from a store.

Really? Has it not been made to be a theft, by modern conceptions of 'Intellectual Property'?

Theft is 'taking something, without the intention of giving it back'. How can data be 'taken' and 'not given back'?

More precisely: "Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."

The "intent to deprive the rightful owner" is the all-important part. This holds even if the thief decides to later return the goods (he still had the original intent to deprive at the time of commission of the crime).

Copyright violation is NOT theft. It's more akin to using water from your well without your permission (even when you have a great excess, so you will never be short). In fact, even this is not accurate since in a lot of cases, the "victim" (in the parallel with the "theft" analogy) is a willing party to the file-sharing - *someone* originally has to buy the music/movie to start sharing it online, right?

So using the analogy to determine the "victim" here is meaningless. The "victim" in copyright cases is said to be the holder of the copyright. They superimpose the faces of the artistes so the little people can make the emotional connection, but in most cases, the copyrights are held by faceless corporate entities trafficking in billions of dollars per annum. If one goes back to the "theft" analogy, it's like Lamar Smith is accusing you of stealing, not from the store per se, but from Kellogg's or Black and Decker directly. It makes absolutely no sense, but when was sense to be expected from a politician?:rolleyes:

What's going on here is that the physical medium for the transmission of the product has become redundant. It's the data stream, the 1s and 0s that's become the real commodity. Unfortunately, it's also a commodity that's eminently suited to being effortlessly duplicated ad nauseam, unless it's crippled in some way with DRM (a rather ironic moniker, because rights are actually being taken away from the consumer, without any real rights being conferred on the artistes who dreamt up the product). So instead of a purchasing sort of structure, they're forced to go to a licensing one - when you buy music, a movie or an ebook, you're only buying the license to use it in certain approved ways. Anything outside those bounds, you're breaking the law. But it still isn't *theft*!

Allow me to meander a little tangentially here - I often think about the "Star Trek" economy - with "replicators" in common use. Right now, when we need to use a hammer or a lawnmower or a car and we don't have one, we have to go to a rightful owner we know and borrow one. Neither the makers nor the designers of those implements are likely to be coming after us. But what if, one day, we could just take a friend's thing and replicate one for ourselves from valueless raw materials? Would the designers of that thing (the "IP holders") come after us for copyright infringement? In Star Trek, stuff like this revolutionised the economy to the extent that it no longer made sense to be remotely capitalistic, but would we get so lucky if that day ever came? Or would we lurch into a half-enlightened state where the only things of value became energy (assuming there was a limited supply and no trivial way to collect/extract it oneself) and "IP"? Will we ever free ourselves of the tethers to greed? I guess it remains to be seen.
 
  • #184
So theft is bad and infringing is good?
 
  • #185
ginru said:
The anti-SOPA guy was younger, enthusiastic about the future, and seemed full of passion for new ideas and technology's potential, basically the poster boy for companies like Apple and Google that adapt and succeed in this new economy.
Apple makes hardware and Google sells ad space on its services. Neither one is an example of how to succeed at being a content provider.

(edit: I had meant to say "content producer" when I wrote this)
 
Last edited:
  • #186
Hurkyl said:
Apple makes hardware and Google sells ad space on its services. Neither one is an example of how to succeed at being a content provider.

Yah, I feel a bit silly since I didn't know Netflix (unavailable in my country) already sells flat rate services. I have the feeling that there's a small battle going on between the old manner of doing business, the new manner of doing business, and what are now illegal unrestricted content providers.

I looked at youtube, they want to offer a similar service as Netflix, but they only wanted to throw 100 million at the problem. Which isn't enough to buy enough content and break the hegemony of cable, and at the same time is probably too much given that you can also look at content with no cost illegally.

The problem is that YouTube would need to become a content producer (to break the old hegemonies), a content provider, and needs several tens of millions of subscribers at a low cost flat rate at the same time.
 
  • #187
Jimmy Snyder said:
So theft is bad and infringing is good?

Please point to where someone says infringing is good. You know you need evidence for that sort of claim.
 
  • #188
Char. Limit said:
Please point to where someone says infringing is good. You know you need evidence for that sort of claim.
Jimmy was probably making a commentary over the silliness of nitpicking the difference between the two definitions if there is no moral difference.
 
  • #189
Hurkyl said:
Apple makes hardware and Google sells ad space on its services. Neither one is an example of how to succeed at being a content provider.

(edit: I had meant to say "content producer" when I wrote this)

The key is that they adapt to the consumers. Goggle acquired Youtube while Apple has iTunes, both popular means of content distribution in a new market where much of the content is user-generated or digitally replicated. In addition, they both made sure to get a firm grip on the smartphone app markets as again, this is where consumers are shifting.

Businesses that stick to old, one-dimensional models (like Blockbuster and Borders) will struggle in this new market. Another thing to mention is that the content itself isn't really what has the value but rather it's the fan culture around that content. For example, when I dropped my cable TV, I realized that I didn't actually miss any of the shows I was once addicted to but I did miss the water-cooler chat about those shows. I no longer have the patience to sit through the fluff of an entire series, but I do enjoy the short clips and comments that I read on Youtube. It's like watching a long trailer of all the good parts while chatting with fan geeks who read the book.

As for conventional content providers, Disney was smart to re-release their beloved classics in 3D. In addition, they also bought the established fanbases of Pixar and Marvel Comics. Not only does that still pay off in terms of movies, but they can reap the benefits in other media, like gaming.

I'm glad MarcoD mentioned World of Warcraft because it reminds me of my old addiction to Diablo. The game itself was ok, but what really sucked me in was the Battlenet multi-player network/chat. Blizzard and other game makers are a great model to follow as they provide a total package with their own built-in fan culture that gives the users a dynamically evolving experience. This reflects the essence of what consumers want from technology. If these companies had simply focused on that instead of trying to continue exploiting consumers through overpriced CDs and DVDs, then perhaps they wouldn't be so desperate now for legislative help.
 
  • #190
Hurkyl said:
Apple makes hardware and Google sells ad space on its services. Neither one is an example of how to succeed at being a content provider.

(edit: I had meant to say "content producer" when I wrote this)

An interesting note: MTV is now offering their shows online with commercials. I think this is the way it has to be done now.
 
  • #191
Galteeth said:
An interesting note: MTV is now offering their shows online with commercials. I think this is the way it has to be done now.

I think so too. Together with stuff like international and national entertainment and news Internet channels. So the whole world can talk about the same subject when having coffee.

(I have the feeling that a flat rate subscription on a number of channels would work best. Where the provider essentially would sell you the 'experience' of being among the first to watch new content. Guess it needs to happen because I don't think movies or series have a lot of value left once they have been aired anywhere on the world.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #192
russ_watters said:
Jimmy was probably making a commentary over the silliness of nitpicking the difference between the two definitions if there is no moral difference.

There is a moral difference. They're both crimes under current law, but with vastly different implications and ramifications.

To assert there is no moral difference would be as ridiculous as asserting that shoplifting and armed robbery are equally reprehensible crimes.
 
  • #193
We can talk moral philosophy all we want, but if you want to be practical about it, people are going to take the free copy, given a choice. If companies want to preserve profit margins, they just have to come up with a better method of product delivery and development. That's it, no matter how wrong they feel piracy is.
 
  • #194
Pythagorean said:
We can talk moral philosophy all we want, but if you want to be practical about it, people are going to take the free copy, given a choice. If companies want to preserve profit margins, they just have to come up with a better method of product delivery and development. That's it, no matter how wrong they feel piracy is.

This, I agree with. And the (reasonably-priced) paid distribution of said content should be done equitably across the world. Right now, when I try to access legitimate media services hosted in the US from outside the US, I often get a message that tells me such access is prohibited from my location. This is another example of the unfair practices of "copyright holders" - presumably they're holding back on this so that they can make more lucrative deals with the local (non-US) cable networks to release the TV shows at a later date. In the meantime, the avid-TV watching consumers who want to keep current of the latest shows without being done in by the spoilers prevalent on the Internet are disenfranchised.
 
  • #195
Curious3141 said:
To assert there is no moral difference would be as ridiculous as asserting that shoplifting and armed robbery are equally reprehensible crimes.
Don't be silly. The only difference between shoplifting and armed robbery is the weapon. No such difference exists between theft and copyright infringement.
 
  • #196
Curious3141 said:
There is a moral difference. They're both crimes under current law, but with vastly different implications and ramifications.

To assert there is no moral difference would be as ridiculous as asserting that shoplifting and armed robbery are equally reprehensible crimes.
If the end result is loss of income, it's the same damage to the victim. That's the point. Anyone really not understand that?
 
  • #197
The difference is the loss of value. Theft = loss of value. Copyright infringment does not necessarily mean loss of value. It's circumstantial.

There's an obvious loss of value if you copy materials then sell them to the customer yourself. There's no loss of value if someone who would have never bought it, makes a copy for personal use.

This is why it's the responsibility of the company to enforce copyright, not the government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Enforcement_responsibility

Whereas government can enforce theft, because it ALWAYS involves a loss of value. A company can tell me not to copy my CD and give it to a friend. They can't arrest me for it until I start mass distributing (or have evidence that I intend to) and make the loss of value indisputable.
 
  • #198
Jimmy Snyder said:
No such difference exists between theft and copyright infringement.

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.

A friend of mine has a netflix subscription, and invites many people in the apartment building for a movie night once a week. He probably does more damage to the movie rental industry (within our apartment building) than any illegal downloading that occurs in the building- and yet no one would suggest cracking down on having a friend over to watch a movie. Its "theft" in the same way most digital piracy is- enjoying media content you didn't personally pay for.

In my mind, the issue with piracy comes down to two large points-
1. there is a tremendous cost to increase our efforts at policing IP
2. we are in no way suffering from a serious lack of entertainment- movies budgets seem to grow and grow, and yet are still profitable. Itunes has more new music every weak than the local cd shop when I was growing up. Even TV is much better than when I was younger (every cable channel seems to be producing their own content now!).

Until 2 is no longer true, its simply not worth the cost of 1.

If the end result is loss of income, it's the same damage to the victim.

Inviting a friend over to watch a movie you own (or have rented) results in loss of income for movie companies. Should it be in the same moral area as theft?
 
  • #199
ParticleGrl said:
Inviting a friend over to watch a movie you own (or have rented) results in loss of income for movie companies. Should it be in the same moral area as theft?

Writing a negative review for a popular magazine/newspaper/online source results in waaayyyy more loss of income than inviting your friend over. And they get paid for it.
 
  • #200
Jimmy Snyder said:
Don't be silly. The only difference between shoplifting and armed robbery is the weapon. No such difference exists between theft and copyright infringement.

The *only* difference is the weapon?!

How about aggressive intent and assault?

How about long-lasting and scarring emotional and possibly physical trauma caused to the victim(s)?

To disregard all this is far sillier!

And to assert that "no such difference" exists between theft and copyright infringement? That's just as silly! I've already made a long post detailing why I think no exact parallel can be drawn between the victim(s) of theft and the "victim(s)" of copyright infringement. I don't like repeating myself, so feel free to re-read that at your leisure.

And please stop *your* silliness. There is no way you can convince a rational, objective party (i.e. one not brainwashed by the massive disinformation campaign in the media) that theft and copyright infringement are the same thing.
 
  • #201
Evo said:
If the end result is loss of income, it's the same damage to the victim. That's the point. Anyone really not understand that?

Nope, not the same damage at all. I do understand that there *may be* fiscal damages to the copyright holder in the case of copyright infringement - and even this has NOT been conclusively proven. There are definitely very tangible material and financial losses suffered by the victim in cases of actual theft.

My understanding is fine, thanks very much.

(Not to nitpick - but the issue in theft is not the loss of *income*).
 
  • #202
ParticleGrl said:
There is no material loss in infringement.
Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.
 
  • #203
Jimmy Snyder said:
Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.

Prove it.

Essentially, you have to prove that all (or even most of) those "infringers" would've paid for the product if they could not have procured it illegally.

Noone has yet been able to do this. All we have is a massive smokescreen fudging the issues.
 
  • #204
Curious3141 said:
Essentially, you have to prove that all (or even most of) those "infringers" would've paid for the product if they could not have procured it illegally.

Does he? Or does he have to show that there was one lost sale?

There is a difference between saying "a little theft is too much trouble to try to counter" and "a little theft is morally OK".
 
  • #205
Vanadium 50 said:
Does he? Or does he have to show that there was one lost sale?

Well, he did use the word "substantial", didn't he? :tongue:
 
  • #206
It's good if we got back to the issues here. I freely concede that copyright infringement is legally wrong (in many jurisdictions). I am also willing to concede that it is morally wrong, although nowhere near as abhorrent as actual theft (in whatever form).

Given those, the law is justified in trying to shut down copyright infringement (piracy is another emotionally-laden term, so I'll eschew using it). But how extensive should their powers to do this be? This is the crux of the SOPA/PIPA debate. Most people feel that these bills, if passed, would place too much power into the hands of bullies (as they've repeatedly shown themselves to be). *This* is what this debate should be about, so please let's get it back on track (I'm sorry for my part in having skewed it off track).
 
  • #207
  • #208
Jimmy Snyder said:
Don't be silly. The monetary loss in copyright infringement can be substantial.

I didn't say it wasn't. I said that if I photocopy your book, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR BOOK. If I copy your software, YOU STILL HAVE YOUR SOFTWARE.

If I steal them, you no longer have them. Thats what I meant by "loss." Not indirect revenue considerations.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way to enforce IP more effectively that doesn't result in enormous costs/dead-weight loss (in this case born by the taxpayer). We already have enough enforcement that entertainment industry is very profitable. The average taxpayer is enormously entertained: we are suffering no loss of entertainment product.

So, why should I (as a taxpayer) have to pay more taxes AND deal with the annoyances of a potentially fragmented internet FOR NO BENEFIT?

Just one kind of copyright infringement...

The source's numbers are hokey. Keep in mind that when someone downloads a movie instead of paying for it, they eventually spend that $1 (I think that's the redbox rate?) somewhere else. Piracy redistributes resources, it doesn't remove them from existence. When I watch a movie my neighbor rented, I don't simultaneously set my cash on fire. I use it to buy popcorn or chips or whatever I'm bringing over. Less jobs for redbox, perhaps, more jobs for the grocery store.
 
Last edited:
  • #209
Jimmy Snyder said:
Just one kind of copyright infringement.
Cost of movie piracy

Where's the methods for their calculation?
 
  • #210
ParticleGrl said:
Keep in mind that when someone downloads a movie instead of paying for it, they eventually spend that $1 (I think that's the redbox rate?) somewhere else.
Small comfort to the owner of the copyright.
 
<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