Wikipedia Calls for Anti-SOPA Blackout Jan 18

[MarcoD]

How can some student from a poor country buy a 200 dollars textbook while his father's salary does not exceed 100 dollars per month ??. They should better block porn not knowledge .Why not blocking porn websites ? They are more dangerous than downloading textbooks

Nice. I don't agree on dangerous, but what about:

Porn is only interesting for five minutes (your mileage may vary,) while a textbook lasts you a lifetime?

 

[Curious3141]

Nice. I don't agree on dangerous, but what about:

Porn is only interesting for five minutes (your mileage may vary,) while a textbook lasts you a lifetime?

I rebut with: "A thing of beauty is a joy forever." (Keats)

Doesn't get much more booty-ful than a hot nekkid chick.

Things I love most about PF #2341: the high level of intellectual discourse.

 

[IMP]

Copyright infringement is not theft.
Is every illegal download of copyrighted material a lost sale for the copyright owner?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...gal-downloads-dont-equal-17000-lost-sales.ars

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...does-file-sharing-really-cost-hollywood.shtml

http://www.metafilter.com/78478/Illegal-Download-Lost-Sale

 

[MarcoD]

Doesn't get much more booty-ful than a hot nekkid chick.

Man, it wasn't meant like a platitude; I mostly don't get what the fuzz is about. What am I, muslim? I just have sex, or solo-sex, or a relationship, or nothing. Most of the people just seem to make a lot of fuzz about the things you should care least about.

 

[Andre]

Nice. I don't agree on dangerous, but what about:

Porn is only interesting for five minutes (your mileage may vary,) while a textbook lasts you a lifetime?

Some textbooks are outdated and overtaken by many studies that show different results. However those keep legends alive.

Esc doesn't seem to work for me, but there is always googles cache.

 

[Curious3141]

Man, it wasn't meant like a platitude; I mostly don't get what the fuzz is about. What am I, muslim? I just have sex, or solo-sex, or a relationship, or nothing. Most of the people just seem to make a lot of fuzz about the things you should care least about.

You've completely lost me.

 

[jhae2.718]

Esc doesn't seem to work for me, but there is always googles cache.

Disable JavaScript.

 

[MarcoD]

You've completely lost me.

The muslim comment was on that most monotheistic religions thwart normal sexual tension between people to heavily restricted sexual rules and subsequently frustration. As far as I can see, now a few billion people confuse sexual frustration with religion, and subsequently find that they need to smash each other's heads in over that. Maintaining sexual frustration is just one of the oldest dirtiest tricks in the book of establishing religions.

The other comment was on that I simply don't care on the what, or the why, or the who, on how people fornicate.

 

[Jack21222]

What always gets to me is how unfairly the system is tilted in favour of the copyright mafia (or as some call them, the MAFIAA, parodying both the RIAA and the MPAA). Filesharers do something wrong - they go medieval on their posteriors. Academic hackers come up with interesting findings related to cryptographic schemes (which have implications on copy-protection) - like deCSS Jon and Dmitri Sklyarov - and they get shut down by ridiculous legislation like the US DMCA, and harassed by the law and the copyright MAFIAA alike.

But when the copyright MAFIAA does something egregiously, horribly wrong, like worming rootkits onto people's PCs, they get away with a mere slap on the wrist (except in some states like Texas).

It's not like the MAFIAA is zealously supporting the rights of artists, anyway - enough artists have already spoken out against them to demolish that myth.

Most of the really ridiculous copyright and copyright-related legislation comes out of the US - the DMCA, and now SOPA/PIPA. Customs and Border agents in the US and affiliated countries (the UK and Australia come to mind) can probe your laptop with impunity for porn and copyrighted material. The US also strongarms other countries into accepting near-facsimiles of US copyright legislation under the guise of the Free Trade Agreements. So, even if I'm not in the US, it does affect me. US policy affects the whole world.

So, please, guys - help nip ridiculous new legislation in the bud. DMCA was bad enough, now this new stuff enables the copyright MAFIAA to do far more with impunity than they were able to get away with before. This new law is going to be as ridiculous as prohibition. Problem is, people ultimately saw sense and prohi was repealed. With the way things seem to be going, I don't think we're going to be as lucky if SOPA is passed.

I support Wiki 100%.

I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree that DCMA was a bad piece of legislation. It wasn't perfect, but I feel it gave IP holders some defense of their intellectual property while at the same time protecting websites that offer user-generated content.

 

[Evo]

Copying of any work that is outside of the Fair Use law is illegal, no matter what you call it. It doesn't matter if the legal term isn't "theft", it's illegal.

http://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

http://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/basics.html#7

Also, my view of Google is normal and I can link directly to wikipedia from Google and it's not blacked out. If I didn't know about this from the news, I wouldn't know anything happened. Anyone else not seeing anything unsual?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Also, my view of Google is normal and I can link directly to wikipedia from Google and it's not blacked out. If I didn't know about this from the news, I wouldn't know anything happened. Anyone else not seeing anything unsual?

The blackout isn't totally secure, apparently there are many ways of getting round it;
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/01/how-to-access-wikipedia-during.html

As well as this there is a simple escape button method as mentioned earlier in thread.

 

[Evo]

The blackout isn't totally secure, apparently there are many ways of getting round it;
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/01/how-to-access-wikipedia-during.html

As well as this there is a simple escape button method as mentioned earlier in thread.

I didn't have to do anything, perhaps access via google is the difference.

 

[lisab]

Here's what I see at Google:

It works fine, though.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I didn't have to do anything, perhaps access via google is the difference.

Do you have javascript disabled? If not I have no idea

 

[Char. Limit]

How can some student from a poor country buy a 200 dollars textbook while his father's salary does not exceed 100 dollars per month ??. They should better block porn not knowledge .Why not blocking porn websites ? They are more dangerous than downloading textbooks

Well for one thing, porn isn't illegal. That might be a good reason why we're not blocking porn websites.

 

[Evo]

Here's what I see at Google:

It works fine, though.

Apparently it's only the main page, I access google through a Google toolbar and the view is normal. Seems to be the same for wikipedia, you only get the message if you access the main page, if you link directly to the content, it's business as usual. At least that is what I'm experiencing.

 

[Char. Limit]

Just wondering, Evo, do you use NoScript or some similar plugin?

 

[Evo]

Just wondering, Evo, do you use NoScript or some similar plugin?

Nope. Are you having problems? I have not attempted to go directly to Wikipedia's homepage, so that is not in my cache, I've just been doing google searches and accessing articles on wikipedia with no problem.

 

[MarcoD]

I also don't see a black-out on Google, there is a support anti-SOPA link. I assume Google restricts the special logo to US citizens. So Evo probably is a user where Google doesn't know the geographic location.

 

[cmb]

I think I have missed the replies here that actually discuss what the issues of SOPA and PIPA actually are! Just seems to be a thread blasting whatever anyone thinks are issues of internet copyright.

As far as I understood the piece that the wiki page links to, the main thrust of the 'complaint'/concern is that the ISPs will be 'rewarded' (by being left alone to get on with it, not too many questions asked) for being excessively restrictive on their internet traffic. In turn, this may lead to a 'mob behaviour' to restrict and prevent traffic of anything bordering on something the ISPs think is risqué, which then might serve to limit freedom of expression.

Well, what's wrong with that? I mean... where one ISP is risk-averse and, say, overly restricts certain subjects/areas, another ISP that is less risk-averse will pop up that will service the customers that the 'big' risk-averse ISP's refuse to host.

Rather than limiting freedom of expression, it might even have the converse effect in which ISPs begin to proliferate (better guaranteeing internet freedoms) so that the internet is controlled by fewer, large ISPs and instead the majority of ISPs in the future may be small, niche companies that pick up business in particular specialist areas.

Seems like a storm in a teacup to me - as far as I read the wiki-linked article has portrayed it.

(incidentally, you still get the wiki pages - just halt the upload of the page at the moment it loads, and before it turns to the blank-out screen, if you want to get to read a wiki article)

 

[MarcoD]

It has been stated clearly that PIPA and SOPA can cut off websites from the web if they are found to present copyrighted material, and, as far as we know, they don't even need to host that but simple linking to copyrighted content is enough of an infringement.

I.e., they could cut of this forum at will for having links to copyrighted music.

 

[Number Nine]

It has been stated clearly that PIPA and SOPA can cut off websites from the web if they are found to present copyrighted material, and, as far as we know, they don't even need to host that but simple linking to copyrighted content is enough of an infringement.

I.e., they could cut of this forum at will for having links to copyrighted music.

More importantly, all I would have to do is post said link and report it, and then PF would be taken down before having an opportunity to repeal. I'd like to have that power, but I don't want anyone else to have it.

 

[Andre]

I think the last two posts say it all. If I happen to have a wall and somebody writes something on it -grafitti-, which happens to be copyrighted, I end up in jail.

Protecting copyright is fine by all means, but the perpetrators should be held responsible, not the owners of walls, where things can be written upon.

 

[cmb]

It has been stated clearly that PIPA and SOPA can cut off websites from the web if they are found to present copyrighted material, and, as far as we know, they don't even need to host that but simple linking to copyrighted content is enough of an infringement.

I.e., they could cut of this forum at will for having links to copyrighted music.

Which section of which Act are you saying are new legal powers, in this respect?

An 'Act' cannot do any 'cutting-off'. Would it not require people (owners of copyright, or their agents) to come forward and make legal representation? Else, who is asking for such material to be 'cut-off'?

I am lead to believe by the wiki article (or maybe somewhere else I have read) that legislation to do this already exists, that already enables copyright owners to make said legal representation. Internet dialogues appear to suggest this isn't a 'key' part of these new Acts, over any above existing laws. My reading suggests that what makes these Acts different is that it is putting this power directly into the hands of the ISPs, and that if ISPs are seen to be good and effective 'guardians' of such, then they will be allowed just to get on with it. It is the 'just getting on with it' part of that last sentence I think is the issue, is it not? That there will be no direct recourse to anyone if you feel you've been unfairly 'cut-off'.

My point is that more ISPs will start up, to fill the gaps and provide services to those who feel their ISPs have acted unfairly.

If anyone who knows the existing laws, and is familiar with these new proposed Acts [rather than folks having knee-jerk reactions to hearsay and what they think the new Acts add to the law], could they comment on the above? I would be obliged for references and pointers to the relevant sections of the legislation.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you are disappointed then I am not sure what you expected! Their goal is to capture the attention of millions of average people, inform them, and persuade them in the 5-10 seconds they are likely to spend on the page.

Sounds wonderful. But what information are they giving? What are they trying to persuade people of?

You can't just look at what they do and say "they're opposing the SOPA and PIPA"; you have to look at what their words are actually promoting.

I'm disappointed because they put words in their blog post that can read as opposing the very idea of laws regarding the internet. And while it matters less, I can't rule out the notion that they actually mean it that way.

I'm making an issue of this because, quite frankly, I find far too many people are willing to agree with and defend any opinion, so long as it's framed as agreeing with them on a particular topic. Even in this thread, it almost looks as if some people can't even tell the difference between the notions of "opposing this particular piece of anti-piracy legislation because it has too many negative side-effects" and "opposing the notion of fighting piracy" (or even "opposing the notion of having laws related to the internet").

 

[MarcoD]

An 'Act' cannot do any 'cutting-off'. Would it not require people (owners of copyright, or their agents) to come forward and make legal representation? Else, who is asking for such material to be 'cut-off'?

This is cutting off, as defined by Wikipedia:

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.

By cutting off I mean above restrictions, no advertisements/payments/search + blocking (removing the DNS entry). The Justice Department and copyright holders can ask for sites to be cut off.

The two step process is described by Wikipedia as:

The bill also establishes a two-step process for intellectual property rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation. The rights holder can then sue for limited injunctive relief against the site operator, if such a counter notification is provided, or if the payment or advertising services fail to suspend service in the absence of a counter notification.

You won't see new ISPs coming up. The US cannot impose laws on ISPs outside of the US. I think that the most dramatic effect you'll see of this will be that the root DNS servers will be moved outside of the US (something you won't notice), and the US will block content from outside ISPs.

In plain English: The first effect will be that it will just drive a service (the root-DNS) and a number of websites out of the US. And these websites will subsequently become blocked by the great wall of the USA. And then some geeks will implement features in web browsers to work around that restriction.*

* I just checked some assumptions. The US has no jurisdiction over foreign DNS servers, so people will use those, the DeSopa extension to firefox (circumvent SOPA in case it might come into effect) has already been developed.

** Lastly, I wouldn't worry that much about the exact wording of SOPA, since the lawyers seem to have made a mess out of it. But that doesn't matter, since it will be enacted 'according to the spirit of the laws,' no judge will really know what it is all about, and technically it is clear what they are aiming for: the blockade of websites offering links to copyrighted material (like Pirate Bay), and the number of technical solutions are clear (either you block DNS, or IP, or both).

 

[cmb]

In plain English: The first effect will be that it will just drive a service (the root-DNS) and a number of websites out of the US. And these websites will subsequently become blocked by the great wall of the USA. And then some geeks will implement features in web browsers to work around that restriction.

My goodness! That is one heck of a jump/interpretation of "a two-step process for intellectual property rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement"!

I feel confident (though I cannot attest to how difficult it might currently be) that such relief as mentioned here is already available through the Courts. I believe such cases have already gone through, and such relief has been gained.

In fact, I think one such victim was that Russian website, Allofmp3, that was running about 5 years ago? Its user interface was one of the best and set other music sites to shame. The curiosity of it all was that, as far as I understand, in Russian law they were doing nothing wrong, so I was unclear how using a legal service abroad, that legally supplied digital content to other countries, would be illegal for remote use in another country with no import tax on digital information. But still it was claimed that it was illegal. There are still legal hurdles to overcome here, I think, before such legislation [if it comes in] can bite.

I still think it is a fuss over nothing. There are already a zillion laws that can be used for good, or used for ill. It is not the laws that are so important as the use, or abuse, they are put to.

The irony of Allofmp3 was that its download interface was so good that other music stores copied its basic architecture! Intellectual property, eh!?

 

[MarcoD]

In fact, I think one such victim was that Russian website, Allofmp3, that was running about 5 years ago? Its user interface was one of the best and set other music sites to shame. The curiosity of it all was that, as far as I understand, in Russian law they were doing nothing wrong, so I was unclear how using a legal service abroad, that legally supplied digital content to other countries, would be illegal for remote use in another country with no import tax on digital information. But still it was claimed that it was illegal. There are still legal hurdles to overcome here, I think, before such legislation [if it comes in] can bite.

I still think it is a fuss over nothing. There are already a zillion laws that can be used for good, or used for ill. It is not the laws that are so important as the use, or abuse, they are put to.

The irony of Allofmp3 was that its download interface was so good that other music stores copied its basic architecture! Intellectual property, eh!?

Well, the two step process is clear. They'll indite someone, plaintiff living in some foreign country won't show up, and then they'll block a website. And then the only manner for SOPA to be enacted will be for the USA to construct agreements with other countries.

allofmp3 was closed. mp3sparks now substitutes it, so they can start the whole process again.

And it won't matter one bit since you can assume that the next version of MSM, or EMule, or whatever, will be better and easier at online sharing.

Even if the USA enacts SOPA, within two months better technical solutions to file sharing will emerge, it will only speed up the process.

 

[Curious3141]

The muslim comment was on that most monotheistic religions thwart normal sexual tension between people to heavily restricted sexual rules and subsequently frustration. As far as I can see, now a few billion people confuse sexual frustration with religion, and subsequently find that they need to smash each other's heads in over that. Maintaining sexual frustration is just one of the oldest dirtiest tricks in the book of establishing religions.

The other comment was on that I simply don't care on the what, or the why, or the who, on how people fornicate.

I agree with the last statement. The previous paragraph...no comment.

 

[Curious3141]

I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree that DCMA was a bad piece of legislation. It wasn't perfect, but I feel it gave IP holders some defense of their intellectual property while at the same time protecting websites that offer user-generated content.

I take issue with the way in which the DMCA has been used to stifle academic research into the cryptographic methods that are used in copy protection and digital rights management. The far-reaching consequences of legislation are very difficult to predict ahead of time, which is why we need to be careful about what gets passed today.