The motives may be laudable
But the average US politicians propensity to vote is directly proportional the the size of the lobbyists wedge, I fancy.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has announced that the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" will go dark this Wednesday in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act, aka SOPA, that's dividing Washington DC – not to mention pitting online content providers against ISPs, search-engine sites, civil libertarians, and others. Wales tweeted on …
I don't agree with politicians (many of whom are democratically elected) on some subjects either. But their selective hearing capability won't be damaged by actions such as this. Hitting them in the cash department definitely will.
Targetting ordinary Internet users, most of whom are very honest people, won't resolve this problem. The world community have to go after the paymasters who keep the politicians on the wrong side of the fence.
The idea that the voting public are somehow not involved in the corruption is just not so. The public are the ones who voted the politicians in and it is completely within their power to ignore the private-interest-funded glitz and vote for someone who will represent THEIR interests. They don't, ergo, it is their own stupid fault.
BTW: It has elec-tro-lites!
You _really_ don't get the idea of a protest do you?
They are not 'Targetting ordinary Internet users'. What the blackout will do is (in theory) make some more aware of SOPA and what it entails. The idea being to help trigger a public backlash against SOPA.
Whether or not it'll work is up for debate, but protests aren't about 'targetting x' they are at most 'incovenience x so maybe they'll show some support having realised the potential implications of change a'.
Whether or not you support the change being proposed (in any protest) is down to the individual, but don't make the mistake of thinking any protest/strike is targetted at you unless you're the one trying to change something.
In this case, if enough people complain the Politicians may have to listen. If the majority of your constituency (do the yanks use that term) are against something, supporting it could cost your career come election time. Of course voter apathy needs to be considered as well
I'd have thought SOPA has an awful lot to do with Wikipedia. As I understand it, if anyone posts something that infringes (or even looks like it infringes) copyright on a website, under SOPA the copyright holder can get access to the whole website shut down (at least within the USA), without any sort of due process. Now look how easy it is to post something on Wikipedia - anyone can do it. I'm sure it wouldn't be long before Wikipedia was shut down.
This post has been deleted by its author
How the hell are any of Thursday's newspapers going to get content if professional, qualified, experienced Journalists can't paste copy from Wikipedia?!
Still, at least if Andrew Lloyd Webber drops dead, we won't get any obituaries listing writing Sugababes records amongst his accolades...
I am only one individual with a tiny Internet presence, but on Wednesday my website will consist of a single page with a message about SOPA and PIPA
You can't complain about being ignored if you're not prepared to make any effort at all. This doesn't just affect a handful of sites, it is likely to have a knock-on effect to every website that has any links at all to any other URL.
On Wednesday, my 3 personal sites will also be displaying only an anti-SOPA message. I've also convinced my company management to turn our main website black and place an anti-SOPA banner across the top of the page for 24 hours (the CEO wouldn't allow us to disable the site completely, but this at least is the next best thing!)
>Bipartisanship is so last century
*sigh* yeah, that's true... The second a politician mentions the word (or cooperation), means they're about to do the opposite. Since this is mostly "benefits"* Hollywood types (who hate Republicans), it does beg the question why Republicans supported it other than Murdoch who is a bit of a looney? (see current UK cases and purchase of Myspace)
* NOTE: benefits in quotes above, since I don't think SOPA as written benefited anyone.
''I hope El Reg will also be going dark''
The idea is to bring the issue to the attention of the great majority who have not heard what is happening or who have vaguely heard but not bothered to find out what SOPA is. El Reg readers are very likely to know what the fuss is all about - so there is little point is darkening El Reg.
However a large banner, in sympathy, would not go amiss.
No we are not pro SOPA or a supporter of legislation that imposes block lists in such a crude, illiberal manner.
But no we did not go dark. This protest is self-indulgent - and late - in my view. SOPA was effectively killed at the weekend, for starters.
Andrew O. sums up our position here.
That's funny. The version I read is at .org. Have I been spoofed?
But yeah, blocking access only to people in the USA would have been proportionate *and* served to demonstrate to the US that even if they screw up their own competitiveness, the rest of the world does not necessarily have to follow.
Because all it takes is someone working for a record company to forget to take their ritalin one day, and they will fire off an email saying that someone posted the track listing of the CD of one of their artists, and that's copyright 'theft'.
Hey presto, Wikipedia goes down while people try to work out wtf happened, and get an order from a judge to say that it was fair use, and get it put back up... Just in time for someone else to say that a screen-shot from the TRON film in an article about the film is also copyright 'theft', and it all starts again........
Hopefully this goes so totally under that a few of the Capitol Roaches will metaphorically dance from high branches, otherwise our EUROTARDS will fall over themselves trying to emulate this and play Chihuaha to Big Obama and the rest of the one-party system.
After all, they are already about to nuke the eureconomy [what remains of it anyway] by barring Iranian oil. What for? To have their bellies fondled in a game of pure US-internal one-upmanship.
Student: "I could not o my homework because Wikipedia was down"
Teacher: "They announced that early enough, you could have started earlier."
Student: "What? You expected us to finish our work BEFORE the last minute?"
Adults can have such unrealistic ideas about kids ;-)
What are you talking about?
The only site BristolBachelor has listed which I can see in this thread is thetvdb.com which clearly isn't a pirate site, it doesn't seem to be offer any downloads or even links to online videos or external downloads.
It's purely a listing of characters and events from TV Shows, if that site falls foul of fair use then talking about a TV show over the water cooler at the office the next day does as well.
Have I missed something, I feel I have not got a joke or something because there is no way anyone is that brainwashed?
Sorry I mis-read.
It seems like the anti-SOPA crowd are getting a bit paranoid if they think sites which promote TV shows will be pulled down. After all, sites which SELL the product do just this.
Also... crazy to suggest Wikipedia will be pulled down instantly because a record company makes a fuss... rules might _allow_ this but the law allows all kinds of crazy things which don't happen. Too much tinfoil being sold in my view.
"... rules might _allow_ this but the law allows all kinds of crazy things which don't happen"
They also allow lots of crazy things that DO happen. The fact is that SOPA gives some companies a way to instantaneously censor any website not of their liking. If you believe this capacity won't be abused, you may also be interested in this little bridge I've for sale...
"the law allows all kinds of crazy things which don't happen"
You mean like the extradition of someone for copyright infringement?
IMHO it's far better to ensure that laws aren't too broad. As much as we might hear "Oh that bit will never get used", experience shows that if a law/treaty grants the power to do something, it will get (mis)used at some point.
The argument of course is that if that'll never be used, why bother writing the power into the law in the first place?
Whilst I'd like to hope that someone would have the sense to go "Oh Wikipedia? hmmm wouldn't be proportional to have the plug pulled", I've not got that much faith. Bear in mind the issue a little while back where substantial swathes of the UK were barred from editing Wikipedia as a result of part of the domain being added to the IWF blacklist. Not quite the same admittedly, but it does show just how easily common sense can be ignored
the real and obvious problem with this law, one so glaring it should never have made it past the rough drafting stage when the elected representatives clerks were putting it together at the local watering hole let alone after the initial committee review, is that it allows anyone to issue a claim that covered material has been posted to a site and the ISP MUST shut it down. There is no recourse for site owner. That's a pre-emption that even an "I wanna be a pre-law student one of these days" person would find flies in the face of the First Amendment and multiple SCOTUS rulings.
The site I use to find pirated films and music, does not appear on a DNS server.
Some of the links are to files that are scp'd (and thus encrypted while in transit). SOPA and PIPA are being implemented by computer illiterates.
If SOPA gets passed it will just make it more confusing for the `illiteratti' to find whats really going on anyway !
One of the profs here came up with the comment "wikipedia is not as inaccurate as the people who say it is inaccurate are".
Kudos to Jimmy and his team, it may be a portion of self interest, but it is going to alert a large number of folk who wouldn't hear of it - I don't think I've heard anything about SOPA in the British media, except on the Today program, which isn't exactly the massest of media - if nothing else, it will inspire comment.
*AT* midnight on Wednesday? There's no such thing as *AT* midnight, there's /from/ midnight and /until/ midnight. You have to read more of the article and translate the UK time to work out that what it should say is midnight Wednesday *morning* as opposed to midnight Wednesday *evening*.
Erm, I'd have thought that wikipedia was one of the highest profile cases where the site depends for its very existence on the goodwill of *a* web community, and technical ownership is no use if the content dries up. Then again, as far as I'm aware, Jimbo realises this and did consult fairly widely amongst those who contribute.
You know that's almost enough to make me want it to pass.
Almost. But it's still so bad I have to be against it. Of course, it really is silly that Wiki is choosing to do this after the announcement from Eric Cantor that even if SOPA makes it out of the Senate, it is dead in the House.
Since when does Wikipedia have the power to remove a day from the calendar?
Quit with the "Americanisation" of your headlines. As written, the headline of this article means something completely different to what is intended.
For those of you who don't realise the mistake, Wikipedia is not shutting down Wednesday, it is shutting down ON Wednesday. The former means that Wednesday will not exist because of Wikipedia, the latter means Wikipedia will be offline tomorrow.
...because on Wednesday I was able to view Wikipedia pages without problems. There was some sort of notice about the SOPA blackout, but I didn't have any trouble getting to normal content.
And yes, this was the US English-language http://en.wikipedia.org/ site (currently resolving to 126.96.36.199 through my name server). I double-checked, because I expected it to be blacked out.
I did start from an already-open content page and searched from there, rather than going to the Wikipedia main page. Maybe they only blacked out the main page? But that seems unlikely, since many readers get to Wikipedia pages through Google searches, and Google just changed their search-page image for the day.
That said, the various SOAP/PIPA protest site blackouts appear to have been surprisingly effective at raising attention, and may have helped pressure various co-sponsors to drop the bills.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020