News Wikipedia Calls for Anti-SOPA Blackout Jan 18

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hurkyl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wikipedia
AI Thread Summary
Wikipedia's planned blackout on January 18 is a protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which many believe threatens online freedoms and could lead to censorship. Critics argue that the protest's extreme stance may alienate potential supporters, as some feel it oversimplifies complex issues surrounding internet regulation. The law, as proposed, could hold websites liable for user-uploaded content, risking their operation if they fail to remove infringing material. Supporters of the blackout, including Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, assert that the legislation could severely impact the platform's ability to function. The discussion highlights a broader concern about the balance between copyright enforcement and maintaining a free and open internet.
  • #51
Polymathiah said:
Piracy is copying, not stealing. The original owner is not deprived of the good when it is copied, as he would be if it were stolen.

It's not the material, it's the value lost from the sale. The argument is that you basically stole out of their cash register after the product had been sold. The assumption seems to be that pirated videos would have been paid for if they couldn't be pirated. Of course that's not always true... pirating probably gives companies a false sense of their perceived value: I've seen people mass pirating and archiving and never really using or even distributing. They're just data-horders. (hey, I have an idea for a new reality TV show...)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Evo said:
To those that say it's censoring the internet, nonsense. Since when is stopping cybercrime censorship? It's about protecting people's rights to their work.

I hope by "it" you mean internet regulation, and not SOPA itself. :)
 
  • #53
Evo said:
...should be protected from pirating...

This is impossible.
 
  • #54
jhae2.718 said:
The other issue is that we shouldn't use legislation to protect a dying business model**. This only stifles innovation. It's possible to make plenty of revenue, even if copyright infringement is as prevalent as is claimed. Steam, Amazon MP3, and iTunes are massively profitable.

Totally agree! The only people that benefit by using this heavy handed legal approach will be the lawyers and lobbyists. Businesses should actually cater to the consumers instead of trying to have politicians do their dirty work for them.

Take for instance 3D technology. They needed a way to get people excited about seeing movies in the theaters again so they innovated and made it trendy again to see 3D movies. If you use the technology to provide a greater experience to your customers, then you'll be rewarded. Disney is doing really well by re-releasing their classics in 3D, for example.
 
  • #55
jhae2.718 said:
This is impossible.

Well... not "give up" impossible. "Seal airtight" is certainly impossible, but the point is really just to keep profit margins up, so the efforts do actually have good results in this regard... if the programmers and social engineers are clever enough in the design of the product.

SOPA is more a of "Og get bigger hammer" solution.
 
  • #56
Evo said:
To those that say it's censoring the internet, nonsense. Since when is stopping cybercrime censorship?

If we go by the original bill, the intent of the DNS filtering provisions was to block copyright infringing sites. Once the capability of censoring sites exists, all bets are off. It's not like ICE has taken down the wrong site before, or, analogously, the PATRIOT Act was used only against terrorists, is it?
 
  • #57
jhae2.718 said:
This is impossible.
That doesn't mean that proper precautions developed by people that understand what they're doing (not politicians, IMO), shouldn't be developed. There will always be criminals, but that doesn't mean that ways to hinder them shouldn't be implemented.
 
  • #58
Pythagorean said:
Well... not "give up" impossible. "Seal airtight" is certainly impossible, but the point is really just to keep profit margins up, so the efforts do actually have good results in this regard... if the programmers and social engineers are clever enough in the design of the product.

SOPA is more a of "Og get bigger hammer" solution.

Agreed. You can make it hard for the average person to pirate something, but as long as debuggers are legal and there are people skilled at disassembly it can be done.
 
  • #59
Evo said:
That doesn't mean that proper precautions developed by people that understand what they're doing (not politicians, IMO), shouldn't be developed. There will always be criminals, but that doesn't mean that ways to hinder them shouldn't be implemented.

Neither SOPA nor PIPA, or, for that matter, DMCA fall into this category. DMCA is far better than the former, and even it is more harmful than good. Off the top of my head, one prominent example is it's use by companies to prevent security researchers from presenting their results at conferences.

Rather than use the nuclear option, it's far better to give incentives not to pirate. (And being shot at dawn does not count as an incentive, MPAA/RIAA. :wink:) Like I said before, iTunes and Steam are great examples of this.

Ultimately, what we have is a battle between the content industry and tech/internet companies over what the future of content distribution is.

Edit: Regardless of your opinion, this is an interesting piece: Lockdown
 
Last edited:
  • #60
jhae2.718 said:
Neither SOPA nor PIPA, or, for that matter, DMCA fall into this category. DMCA is far better than the former, and even it is more harmful than good. Off the top of my head, one prominent example is it's use by companies to prevent security researchers from presenting their results at conferences.

Rather than use the nuclear option, it's far better to give incentives not to pirate. (And being shot at down does not count as an incentive, MPAA/RIAA. :wink:) Like I said before, iTunes and Steam are great examples of this.

Ultimately, what we have is a battle between the content industry and tech/internet companies over what the future of content distribution is.
Agree. This is not something that will be solved by politics, which is something I'm glad to see the Whitehouse seems to understand. Finally common sense seems to be prevailing.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
jhae2.718 said:
Agreed. You can make it hard for the average person to pirate something, but as long as debuggers are legal and there are people skilled at disassembly it can be done.

More importantly, you can make a product that, even if it gets debugged, will not bring the typical customer any satisfaction. I.e., a game the requires communication with the company servers.

Or you can make the customer profiling system more personal so that registration for the product is more controlled.
 
  • #62
Evo said:
This is not something that will be solved by politics, which is something I'm glad to see the Whitehouse seems to understand. Finally common sense seems to be prevailing.

I'd go further and say that it's not something that you're going to solve by regulation. It's going to be up to the affected companies to take steps on their own to deincentivize piracy. Based on their track records, I don't think this will happen. (The RIAA especially has a larger problem, the ability of the Internet to effectively make the cost for an artist to start out and sell music nil. The internet has made them obsolete, and they're in a battle for relevance and survival.)

The fact of the matter is that there is always going to be piracy occurring, and there's nothing short of 1984-style monitoring of everyone or the destruction of the general purpose computer* that can completely stop it. You can take steps to reduce piracy, especially among nontechnical people, but technically minded people will always find a workaround. Here's a quote from the piece I linked to in the post above:
Cory Doctorow said:
By 1996, it became clear to everyone in the halls of power that there was something important about to happen. We were about to have an information economy, whatever the Hell that was. They assumed it meant an economy where we bought and sold information. Information technology improves efficiency, so imagine the markets that an information economy would have! You could buy a book for a day, you could sell the right to watch the movie for a Euro, and then you could rent out the pause button for a penny per second. You could sell movies for one price in one country, at another price in another, and so on. The fantasies of those days were like a boring science fiction adaptation of the Old Testament Book of Numbers, a tedious enumeration of every permutation of things people do with information—and what might be charged for each.

Unfortunately for them, none of this would be possible unless they could control how people use their computers and the files we transfer to them. After all, it was easy to talk about selling someone a tune to download to their MP3 player, but not so easy to talk about the the right to move music from the player to another device. But how the Hell could you stop that once you'd given them the file? In order to do so, you needed to figure out how to stop computers from running certain programs and inspecting certain files and processes. For example, you could encrypt the file, and then require the user to run a program that only unlocked the file under certain circumstances.

But, as they say on the Internet, now you have two problems.

You must now also stop the user from saving the file while it's unencrypted—which must happen eventually— and you must stop the user from figuring out where the unlocking program stores its keys, enabling them to permanently decrypt the media and ditch the stupid player app entirely.

Now you have three problems: you must stop the users who figure out how to decrypt from sharing it with other users. Now you've got four problems, because you must stop the users who figure out how to extract secrets from unlocking programs from telling other users how to do it too. And now you've got five problems, because you must stop users who figure out how to extract these secrets from telling other users what the secrets were!

That's a lot of problems. But by 1996, we had a solution. We had the WIPO Copyright Treaty, passed by the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization. This created laws that made it illegal to extract secrets from unlocking programs, and it created laws that made it illegal to extract media (such as songs and movies) from the unlocking programs while they were running. It created laws that made it illegal to tell people how to extract secrets from unlocking programs, and it created laws that made it illegal to host copyrighted works or the secrets. It also established a handy streamlined process that let you remove stuff from the Internet without having to screw around with lawyers, and judges, and all that crap.

And with that, illegal copying ended forever, the information economy blossomed into a beautiful flower that brought prosperity to the whole wide world; as they say on the aircraft carriers, “Mission Accomplished".

*We may end up here if Xboxes and iPads and other locked-down devices replace the desktop/laptop as the computational devices for most people.
 
  • #63
Evo said:
To those that say it's censoring the internet, nonsense.

The thing is that since all tech savvy people know that since piracy can't be stopped, and certainly not in this manner, they conclude that it is about censorship.

What are they going to ban? MSM, smartphones, counterstrike XVIII? Any social media, and any sufficiently advanced software in the future, is going to provide what they now aim to ban. Heck, since World of Warcraft is supposed to be a 'social' experience, I don't even know why they didn't build profiles and file sharing right in.

It is not going to work unless they'll reduce the whole Internet to 1984-ish security and censorship and everyone knows it.
 
  • #64
Evo said:
Nonsense. It's depriving the owner of the sale of his product. :rolleyes:

He is not deprived of this. He can still attempt to sell it, but given that it is infinitely reproducible, the price quickly goes to 0. Value is in the mind of the valuer, and prices reflect this. Saying that you have a right to the value in a good is tantamount to saying you have a right to control someone else's independent valuations (since the value exists only in the mind). The point being that if I pirate something, it is simply the act of rearranging particles on a hard drive which I own.

Analogy: A person moves in next door to your house. He decides to paint his house with spray cans in a graffiti fashion. This lowers the cost of your house. Should you be able to pass a law stating that he must repaint his house because he deprived you of the money which was lost when your property decreased?

Example question: I have a 3D copier which can infinitely reproduce any physical object out of particles which I own. Would it be right to forbid my use of this machine to eliminate scarcity of food, clothing, and houses just to maintain the cost of current food, clothing, and houses?

This view of copyright/patent enforcement is much like the Luddite fallacy. We have the technology to infinitely reproduce information, but would outlaw it as a Luddite would outlaw mechanized looms in order to preserve the current structure of the economy, rather than letting it shift to better things.
 
  • #65
MarcoD said:
It is not going to work unless they'll reduce the whole Internet to 1984-ish security and censorship and everyone knows it.
Protecting property rights, even if it's an ill conceived bill by politicians that don't understand, is not censorship.
 
  • #66
Evo said:
Protecting property rights, even if it's an ill conceived bill by politicians that don't understand, is not censorship.

It is if it includes provisions for removing entire sites. The DMCA had a takedown provision for copyright infringing material. SOPA/PIPA as originally written do not take down the infringing material--they simply suspend access to the entire site.
 
  • #67
Evo said:
Protecting property rights, even if it's an ill conceived bill by politicians that don't understand, is not censorship.

Property is not property anymore unless you can own or protect it. Do I own the air that I breath? No, I don't since nobody has figured out a manner of owning or declaring air property. If the Internet will reduce information, forms of bits, to air -which some may argue it already has,- it ceases to be be property in practical terms which will mean that, at some point in time, it will cease to be property in judicial terms.

(Mind you, Evo, I agree on property rights. It's just that I think the Internet pushes us into an inevatible course on a redefinition of what digital property constitutes.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
Evo said:
Protecting property rights, even if it's an ill conceived bill by politicians that don't understand, is not censorship.

I'm going to be pedantic again and make the distinction that we are discussing intellectual property rights.
 
  • #69
jhae2.718 said:
It is if it includes provisions for removing entire sites. The DMCA had a takedown provision for copyright infringing material. SOPA/PIPA as originally written do not take down the infringing material--they simply suspend access to the entire site.
But it's not "censorship".

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
 
  • #70
Evo said:
But it's not "censorship".

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:
Wikipedia said:
...suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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]
 
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...

:smile: 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:
 

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
13K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Back
Top