Blackout Wikipedia Protest...

[knowmad]

The scope is huge. SOPA will allow the blocking of websites that are accused of not hosting infringing content themselves, but linking to other websites hosting infringing content. Notice the use of the word “accused” as opposed to “convicted;” the bill mandates the removal of the website by a court order as opposed to a trial. The act also holds Internet Service Providers responsible for hosting these websites and criminalizes the streaming of copyrighted material. So Basically, websites with user-generated content, like Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia or even everyday websites that allow viewers to post comments, such as this blog, could be removed from the Internet if users upload copyright-infringing content. Search engines like Google and Bing are also liable if they link to infringing sites. User-generated content can encompass a wide range of material. When Lady Gaga posted videos of herself singing on YouTube, She was engaging in a social activity that many do today. Under SOPA, her actions would be criminal. Some argue that the bill would never be used to uphold such cruel and unnecessary usage. But the reality is that the language is there. It is entirely up to the Department of Justice’s discretion to impose such censorship law. If you think that companies are only looking to stop malicious websites and would not target everyday people, think again. In 2008, Viacom showed no qualms about demanding that Google give it identification of users who uploaded videos to YouTube they deemed violated their copyrights. In that case, Google was protected because of safe harbor and eventually Viacom and Google reached an agreement to anonymize the data. Under SOPA, Google would be liable for Viacom’s losses and all users of YouTube could potentially face copyright infringement charges. SOPA is being protested widely by average citizens who are rightly concerned that their basic right to an uncensored Internet is about to be trampled upon. But the law is also facing criticism by software engineers and the people who made the internet what it is today. Eighty-three engineers, including Vint Cerf of Google, signed an open letter to Congress urging them to look into the consequences of this bill. In the letter they note that “such legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties’ right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.” This would be of less concern if we could trust that representatives are making educated, informed decisions, but they are not. John McCain (R-AR) is one of the senators who wrote the bill despite admitting that he is “an illiterate that has to rely on [his] wife for all of these [computer-related] things…” in a Yahoo! News interview in 2008. Instead of compensating for his illiteracy (and that of many members of Congress voting on the bill, who openly admitted that they are not “nerds” and understand little about the technology of the internet) by seeking the input of tech experts. This is the kind of attitude that makes one despair of the legitimacy of legislation in the United States and suspect a rat in the whole process. Congress’ main focus seems to be in getting this bill passed ASAP with Zero regard for the consequences. It is no surprise that the MPAA and the RIAA have a major influence on Congress through their lobbying efforts. What is surprising, and dangerous to the democratic system, is that Congress refuses to take seriously the legitimate claims of major internet industries such as Google, eBay, AOL, Twitter and others who have all come out in opposition of this bill.

[Ugly Dougly]

I was going to boycott wikipedia today, but I thought better of it.

[Sham]

Well said knowmad. I just called my U.S. Senator's office and spoke with a person who said they had hundreds of calls today---all opposing this bill. I am hoping that this is the sentiment across the country. To find the legislators near you, go to www.wikipedia.com and punch in your zip code. They have phone numbers and email addresses in addition to all social media contact info.

The scope is huge. SOPA will allow the blocking of websites that are accused of not hosting infringing content themselves, but linking to other websites hosting infringing content. Notice the use of the word “accused” as opposed to “convicted;” the bill mandates the removal of the website by a court order as opposed to a trial. The act also holds Internet Service Providers responsible for hosting these websites and criminalizes the streaming of copyrighted material. So Basically, websites with user-generated content, like Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia or even everyday websites that allow viewers to post comments, such as this blog, could be removed from the Internet if users upload copyright-infringing content. Search engines like Google and Bing are also liable if they link to infringing sites. User-generated content can encompass a wide range of material. When Lady Gaga posted videos of herself singing on YouTube, She was engaging in a social activity that many do today. Under SOPA, her actions would be criminal. Some argue that the bill would never be used to uphold such cruel and unnecessary usage. But the reality is that the language is there. It is entirely up to the Department of Justice’s discretion to impose such censorship law. If you think that companies are only looking to stop malicious websites and would not target everyday people, think again. In 2008, Viacom showed no qualms about demanding that Google give it identification of users who uploaded videos to YouTube they deemed violated their copyrights. In that case, Google was protected because of safe harbor and eventually Viacom and Google reached an agreement to anonymize the data. Under SOPA, Google would be liable for Viacom’s losses and all users of YouTube could potentially face copyright infringement charges. SOPA is being protested widely by average citizens who are rightly concerned that their basic right to an uncensored Internet is about to be trampled upon. But the law is also facing criticism by software engineers and the people who made the internet what it is today. Eighty-three engineers, including Vint Cerf of Google, signed an open letter to Congress urging them to look into the consequences of this bill. In the letter they note that “such legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties’ right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.” This would be of less concern if we could trust that representatives are making educated, informed decisions, but they are not. John McCain (R-AR) is one of the senators who wrote the bill despite admitting that he is “an illiterate that has to rely on [his] wife for all of these [computer-related] things…” in a Yahoo! News interview in 2008. Instead of compensating for his illiteracy (and that of many members of Congress voting on the bill, who openly admitted that they are not “nerds” and understand little about the technology of the internet) by seeking the input of tech experts. This is the kind of attitude that makes one despair of the legitimacy of legislation in the United States and suspect a rat in the whole process. Congress’ main focus seems to be in getting this bill passed ASAP with Zero regard for the consequences. It is no surprise that the MPAA and the RIAA have a major influence on Congress through their lobbying efforts. What is surprising, and dangerous to the democratic system, is that Congress refuses to take seriously the legitimate claims of major internet industries such as Google, eBay, AOL, Twitter and others who have all come out in opposition of this bill.

[Elderberry]

Almost all the big sites that are blacked out have great info on both what SOPA and PIPA are and either how to contact conferee members or petitions to sign. Wordpress.org is also among the blocked sites.

[Ugly Dougly]

Is there a way to hack Wikipedia and get at the content? Surely they don't mind that?!

[theCryptofishist]

You could google the topic that interests you, one of the links will almost certainly be to wikipedia, voila! you're in.

[Sham]

Obama Stops Controversial SOPA Internet Piracy Bill
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mc ... racy-bill/

[JDCookMS]

"Don't cry, Disney owns that emotion."

[youtube][/youtube]

[lemur]

Is there a way to hack Wikipedia and get at the content? Surely they don't mind that?!

wikipedia is free.

just download it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... e_download

English Wikipedia dumps in SQL and XML: http://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/

* pages-articles.xml.bz2 – Current revisions only, no talk or user pages. (This is probably the one you want. The size of the 22 November 2011 dump is approximately 7.3 GB compressed, 31.0 GB uncompressed)

[5280MeV]

Members of the Senate are rushing for the exits in the wake of the Internet's unprecedented protest of the Protect IP Act (PIPA). At least 13 members of the upper chamber announced their opposition on Wednesday. In a particularly severe blow for Hollywood, at least five of the newly-opposed Senators were previously co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act. (Update: since we ran this story, the tally is up to 18 Senators, of which seven are former co-sponsors. See below.)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... senate.ars

Looks like it worked pretty damn well! Rand Paul has even pledged to press the filibuster button.


My house representative (Jim Cooper) is still a SOPA cosponsor, and given that I have strong progressive leanings, I consider him to be the most useless democrat in the house. It is not just this issue - he typically will reach across the aisle not to get anything useful done, but to join house republicans in various political stunt votes, which just gives them bipartisan legitimacy. I am actually seriously considering voting against him next time in the general election, as my district would likely elect a very moderate republican who might actually break ranks for once - this would be a lot more meaningful than a democrat who likes to join them in silly games.

I still haven't decided how to harass my sane senator (Alexander-TN) who appears to still support PIPA. I try to be nice to him because he is fairly reasonable on a number of issues, such as protecting the environment and funding science, and in my opinion one of the best republican senators. In Tennessee one needs to pick one's battles, and trying to erode support for Alexander is likely to just produce something awful - like Corker-TN, who is one of the more dangerously stupid and blindly partisan hacks currently "serving" in the senate.