JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Occupy Congress today!

Led by Wikipedia, a number of Internet sites are now in a self-imposed 24-hour blackout to protest legislation in the United States Congress which could impose censorship on the Internet. Read all about it.

Blackouts protest SOPA

I sent Wikipedia an editorial against their actions. Among my comments were:

Their actions to selectively censor their material based on something they wanted to block (i.e. the legislation) is doing exactly what you are protesting. They are worried the government will selectively choose to block something when they find a company illegally stealing creative intellectual property (such as Songs or Films). They don't want the government to be able to black out that content based on their criteria. But they are themselves blacking out content which was given to them FOR FREE to share with the world, not to be used as a political pawn. What about all the people who disagree with their actions who gave them creative intellectual property via their writing and editing and research contributions who also believe that their commercial work deserves protection from theives and that sites who use their work without paying for it WHILE PROFITING themselves SHOULD be shut down? It's quite hypocritical for Wikipedia to conduct information and content blackmail with our government who work FOR US trying to protect our intellectual property from massive theft because they are afraid that the government might black out content because they don't agree with what is being said or done on the site, and their reaction is to be guilty of doing exactly what they are afraid our government MIGHT do? Do you all see the problem here?

It's the same logic that would say "I am afraid that the White House security MIGHT kill an innocent bystander while trying to protect the president, so to protest, we are going to go ahead and KILL a random bystander to show what COULD happen?

It's insane and dangerous and just wrong. The public supplied that knowledge base expressly so the world could use the information when and however they wanted or needed. They are acting like a government by blacking it out, keeping it away from us all in a move that inflicts the same damage they fear MIGHT happen in an abusive move by the government, and while doing so, they are ALSO allowing murderers to roam free on white house grounds to terrorize the president at will, as their hope that the protection he is being offered will be removed (all in the "fear" that that security option MIGHT mess up and hurt or kill someone).

This is BS! -Brian

You got it right Brian, blackmail to prevent possible blackmail. Most laws are in place as a deterrent to committing crime,they don't want the law in place,so they are saying it is alright to commit the crime of stealing intellectual property.

I admit is a bit confusing but when someone produces some intellectual work they have a right to enjoy some of the fruits of their labor. I suspect those that want to be able to aquire works without paying for it are protesting this legistation in the guise of no centorship. A red herring if I ever saw one. I still don't mind paying for what I get. What a concept!

I agree with Brian.

Tom

I don't support Wikipedia's actions.

I don't support the legislation either - but I don't think Wikipedia's response is proper.

My problem with the legislation is that it holds the disseminator (e.g. youtube) responsible as opposed to the individual who uploaded the content.

Scott

Wow. I'm actually kind of surprised to see the reactions here. It is a protest for a day, and serves the purpose of bringing this issue to the attention of a lot of people who had no idea what SOPA was. It would be hypocritical if it was Wikipedia's policy to routinely black out information, but as it is, they are leading what I see to be the online equivalent of a sit-in. They are doing what they can, with what power they have, to make a statement. Business will not 'go on as usual' for a day, and as the awareness grows and people learn what a horrible effect these laws would have on the internet, small businesses, networking, etc and speak up, maybe the powers that be will also take notice.

If you go there, you'll see that there are options for entering your zip code, links provided so that people can contact their representatives. Just from browsing around the web a bit this morning, I am amazed at how many people didn't know what was going on until they tried to access Wikipedia and found the blackout.

In any case, whatever you believe, things will be back to normal later today, and hopefully enough people will have understood why they did what they did, and do what they can to speak out as well.

Uh, Tim,
I thought everything was up to date in Kansas City! Are you saying they are slipping? Most of us have been around the horn a few times. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it must be a duck! The Revolution has been over for a long, long time. And, we have been discussing intellucital property theft for some time on this board. I don't know all the details in this bill, or if it is good or bad but the fact that it is even being heard in congress means something. Sure it would be nice if the Banks could leave their doors unlocked over night and business didn't need to lock their doors but you should know the ansewr to that one. Some people need to be told where the buck stops. Otherwise they will steal you blind.

Well, Ray. You said it yourself... You don't know all the details in the bill. I don't either, but just enough to be scared of what it means for legitimate online businesses.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml

Scroll down to the bulleted points for a little ''food for thought.'

PS



What does that even mean? lol. Jeesh.

It's from a song.

lol. Ok. I'm with you now.

I think what Wikipedia and the others are protesting is being turned into the copyright police by this legislation with severe penalties if they do not act as well as the draconian measures being proposed that are not subject to due process.

Good commentary here

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...aws-a-draconian-mess-20120118-1q5z0.html

WIKIPEDIA comes up for second and disappears quickly--If you are ready for a screen shot, and fire when page appears, you get the content. YOU HAVE TO BE QUICK!

Mackie

Read the bill first and give others a chance to read it here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

Leaving links to your favorite "Spin" site with editorial comments doesn't help to mete out the truth.

I agree Ben. Folks should read the bill themselves. But they won't. Have you tried reading the thing. Most Bill's are so badly or well written (depending on your perspective) that most folks cannot understand them.
I know I sure can't.
So we rely on some website to produce a version that fits our agenda, regardless of what that agenda may be.

But I think it is just sad that we have 545 supposedly intelligent people running this country and they cannot come up with a bill that says if you steal someones Copyrighted Intellectual property we will put your ass in jail.

I spent a long time today reading that thing...got the headache to prove it.

I think it needs the rewrite it surely appears to be getting after today's hullabaloo. Fix a few of the open-ended bits of language that could be manipulated by deep-pocketed litigators and then pass it, I say.

You know the old saying: Good laws aren't written, they're rewritten.

Wikipedia, well, we all know how accurate they are, like asking you're friends opinion about any subject. They could even be regarded as a rumor mill. They have no basis of fact about anything, but they do make lots of $$ from copyrighted content. Hmmm. Their outrage along with Google's outrage against this bill is very telling.

AOL, Boing Boing, Creative Commons, Daily Kos, eBay, Etsy, Facebook, foursquare, Google, Grooveshark, Hype Machine, Kickstarter, Kaspersky, LinkedIn, Mozilla, OpenDNS, O’Reilly Radar, Reddit, Techdirt, PayPal, Tumblr, Twitter, TechCrunch, Yahoo!,Scribd, Reddit, ICanHasCheezburger, Quora, Hostgator, The Huffington Post, Craigslist

A few other sites that have publicly come out against the bill. I'm having a hard time seeing alterior motives in all of them. I think a number of folks here are confusing their anger/concerns over copyright infringement and intellectual property theft with the actual reasons why companies are concerned. I think Mark has the right of it. With some revisions, and more specific clauses, it might do some good for stemming piracy. As it is, there is too much room for interpretation and, in the wrong hands, it could hurt businesses, large and small, including the very sites that people use for legitimately marketing their own products/services (musicians included).

Just on a side note, is the sarcasm a bit thick in here?

The point of the Wikipedia stunt was to get your attention. It worked.

The problem with these bills is they make it easy for anyone to take down someone else's website or business just by accusing them of infringement. If you think that won't happen, you're naive.

Under the proposed bill, JPF could easily be classified as an infringing website. Easily.

Folks,

The bill itself is irrelevant in this. The actions of these companies (all with the same political bent and view..i.e. they make LOTS of money using or "accidentally" using protected material, or they are far left wing publications/media sites funded by George Soros in many cases imagine if it was reversed and the Koch Brothers et al were banded together), are to black mail our government with a one sided view of a bill that will prevent THEM from getting away scot free 100% of the time. I followed every single link offered on Wikipedia and even the one single link that appeared MIGHT contain an opposing viewpoint, in fact was among the most biased of all. These massive corporations don't want to be held accountable for infringement. Many openly state they copyright is dead or through ACTIONS act as if it already is while paying lip service to their deep support for copyright and trademark.

Wikipedia is not made up of 100% users who agree with their position, but ALL of them are force fed 1 sided propaganda. The reasonable action would have been a forced entry page that offered 2 opinions to debate the issue at hand with a balanced number of additional resources to support their viewpoints. But no, they took a 100% biased approach which is exactly what Wikipedia says they are NOT all about.

I am well aware of the bills. I've had long discussions about problems with it. But I also see a clear need to protect us (i.e. the creative community) from 100% exploitation by multinational corporations who use our content however they please with no compensation. YouTube can do ANYTHING they please with any content and they and their parent company are so frighteningly powerful NOBODY can even THINK about doing anything about it. They (Google and their minions) are more powerful than any government so they answer to no one. They already show extreme bias in their search results based on their views (go ahead and try to find fairness and balance on an issue in opposition to one of their stated positions/beliefs/business strategies? Good luck!

This action by the one entity I had hope would offer an even hand in all issue has been proven to be hypocrites of the first order in these actions. It's all fine if you agree with their positions like you do. What if something comes along one day that you disagree with them on? Perhaps it will illustrate how dangerous this day just was. In essence, we are all slaves to the whims of a handful of one sided corporations. They don't even mask their biases anymore. Tim listed a murderers row of one sided political extremists mixed with self serving multi-national corporations. But keep in mind, a day will come when those forces will turn back around on those who think they are fair and moderate in all things.

Folks, this day may be the end of our freedom when it comes to information exchange and opposing viewpoints having hope of fair or equal time on the web. And forget about creators getting a fair shake from this supposed brave new world online. This just snuffed that out as well. Not because these bills were obliterated, but because notice has been served... fall in line with their views, or be squashed like a bug under their boot-heels. So now we all wait for their next set of marching orders whenever the mood hits them.

To Scott: You are correct, JPF could, in fact, be in danger as the bills were written and I pointed that out earlier on in the process. It's not opposition to the bill that is frightening, it's who and how they did it. FYI, the political bedfellows on this are wide. Issa, (R) from California, was the most vocal opposition to this. But the left wing multinationals and media flexed their muscles so far over the top and the information was so biased and misleading (as if copyright infringement is perfectly fine, even when it's done by foreign nationals because the net should allow anything goes) that the dire need for some protection was lost altogether and politicized so oppressively that many of those trying to protect copyrights and trademarks and patents are afraid to come out and most people miss the entire point to start with.

Brian

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is with privately-held, non-government companies doing what they want on their own websites. The film industry spent nearly $100 million lobbying Congress. THAT is what you should have a problem with, big companies quite literally buying votes and legislation, bypassing the political process.

If I or anyone else, company or otherwise, wants to appeal to the voters and try to convince them of a specific issue, that's absolutely 100% fine. In fact, to say it's not fine is entirely un-Democratic. As long as it's done through private channels (like Google's own website) and truthfully present (which it was) there is not a problem.

I like how people are focusing on Wikipedia in particular and accusing them of an ulterior motive. The company that runs Wikipedia is a non-profit. Why do you think they are constantly soliciting donations? They are not commercial. They don't have ads. They don't have subscriptions. They make pretty much no money. If they wanted to, they could easily put ads on the site or charge for pro/subscription services and make billions, but since it's a non-profit they don't do that. So don't make stuff up, please.

So Brian, I take it you are OK with an outside content owner coming along to shut down JPF without due process because a member posted lyrics to a song that was not theirs?

You would have no right to resist, because the content owner goes to your host, makes some claims that may or may not be true and in no case proven in law, and your host would have to comply or face penalties.

Only later might this be taken to court. But would you have or spend the money to defend yourself??

Those "bootheels" have said they support copyright, but that the bill as written is flawed. I support this position.

The real culprit is the uploader of copyright material to a site that broadcasts the material without permission. Go after them and those sites that have no safeguards against uploaders of material they do not own, or that turn a blind eye towards it. It will take international co operation, but that is the nature of the web.

As an aside, you might draft and include a copyright policy somewhere in your forum membership agreement if you do not already have one there, and set up some kind of complaint process for a copyright owner.

I am azssuming this bill is to add protection from Countries that have not signed the Berne Agreement. As some of you know the Berne Agreement gives copyright protection in all countries that have signed the agreement. So if someone violates copyright in one of those countries anyone from another country has the right to seek a remedy in that country. Not all countries have signed the Berne Agreement and enforcement in those countries is diffucult if not impossible.

I do agree with Brian about the ridiculous power of corporate money, and that we just witnessed it in sweepingly effective action from Google and others yesterday. But I don't share his hope that Congress was the one entity to offer an even hand--the court decision that granted corporations personhood status already changed that. Voting power now resides quite forcefully in the deep-pocketed agendas of super PACs, and it will be difficult for the power of people to compete with that.

As far as the bills, I think they simply deserved to be slowed down and rewritten rather than giddily adopting bad law just to get a foot in the door. I can't support a law that could send you to prison for singing "Happy Birthday" on a YouTube video. Go ahead and call it a silly concern over an unlikely result...but if that's the case, then why put into place the mechanism to legally do so?

Nor am I quick to support an easy legal mechanism for DNS-blocking without better provisions for fairness of due process...that right there is a big red flag to me, and just because some big companies are waving it in order to promote their cause does not mean the danger for future misuse and suppression isn't there.

Maybe that's all irrelevant...but not to me.

This is a difficult issue for me because I can feel both sides.

I have generated a fair bit of content over the years - not that much in music but more in technical information.

Some of it I choose to disseminate for free. Some of it, I want to be compensated for. In an ideal world, the choice of what content would be released one way and what would go the other way would be entirely mine.

It's a little frustrating to spend several years working on a book and then start to see evidence of it being pirated within a few months of its publication.

On the other hand, an over-the-top approach to handling piracy might take us back to the days before the web - where a few gatekeepers let through just what they wanted - a small fraction of the total. This might leave many with nowhere to freely disseminate the stuff they want to disseminate for free

Finding the right balance will be tough......

Scott

I also spent a lot of time trying to understand that bill. (Thanks Dan for the topic, and thanks Ben for the link.) Those in charge have done their usual; take a good idea and turn it into a bad law. In my opinion, due process is circumvented. I for one am NOT willing to support any bill that does that.

Correct the wording. Let's get what we need; a way to got after those that don't subscribe to the Berne agreement on property rights.

Pam

Humm,
After thinking about this I think this Law is aimed at those countries that haven't signed the Berne Agreement and refuse to abide by Copyright Law or any enforcement of. So this law is probably giving the right to Sue to shut down or block any Server that is allowing Copyrighted Material to go to any Berne Country. There will be Due Process as a Court Order would be needed. If that is what is in the final bill I see no problem with it. There has been Copyright Violations for a long time by enities outside the U.S. You read about it from time to time where Product is confiscated by Customs.

It is indeed designed to do just that. All it needs is a rewrite to prevent all the other potential nonsense it allows as written in the current draft.

Another form of intellectual property that is constantly stolen or regenerated is news articles and blogs. Though not up there with movies, music etc. as pirated material, it's still copywrited material that is abused for profit. It's not illegal to reprint a news story or blog post as long as the original source is cited and given credit in the repost.

I had several articles from one of my blogs stolen by a web site in Pakistan a few years ago. I was never given credit and there wasn't a link provided to my site. I contacted Google (since 80% of web traffic comes from their search engine) about it and was told to e-mail the offending site a cease and desist order that G provided at the time. After getting no response I contacted Google again. After an investigation of the offending web site, G determined that they were stealing other material along with mine and de-indexed them from their search engine.

FOX NEWS TODAY 19 Jan 2012. Federal Prosocuters shut down
Megaupload.com. For Pirecy. Front Page on Fox.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16642369

Came here to post link to the news and Ray beat me to it.

This, to me, is the way to go...now go after those who uploaded to Megaupload.com illegally.

An interesting post/topic with equally interesting viewpoints.

I hope this "bill" does not occupy as many pages as the Nancy Pelosi Healthcare Disaster recently yoked around the necks of the taxpayers. With that kind of legislative mindset, can we poor songwriters expect anything better to come from these charlatans. Vote wisely, my friends... and vote as often as you can.

I'm all in favor of protection for the creators of intellectual property... but the words that embody such legislation need to be chosen carefully and not empower yet another "czarism" to be created.

B-T-W... Tim and Ray... the "everything's up-to-date in Kansas City" is a line in one of the great songs in the musical, "Oklahoma" if my memory does not fail me.

KC is a great place and I wonder if Stephenson's still operates that great restaurant over in Independence? Fantastic food! Then there's the "Country Club Plaza" area in KC where shopping and relaxing go hand in hand. Sure brings back some great memories.

Andrew,

Funny, you just reminded me of something that I am shocked I didn't think of in the first place. Non-Profits are not supposed to lobby for particular bills to be passed or not passed. Wikipedia seems to have broken that particular law. Of course they'll get away with it with their power, money and legal team, but it's interesting. One reason why JPF is not a non-profit (among several reasons) is that it would hamper what we could say or do on a particular issue. Most of those companies are private commercial operations and are free to do whatever. But a company that prides itself on true neutrality and nothing but the facts, sure used a big old bully pulpit didn't they to scream one political viewpoint. Thanks for making me think of that.

Brian

To Everyone on all sides:

WAKE UP! This is NOT about protecting our copyrights, nor is it about keeping the internet free of censorship. Copyrights are being grossly abused right now and censorship (and worse) takes place non stop by the corporations in the middle of these battles. We're all (copyright owners AND general public seeking a free internet) are simply pawns being used by both sides in a scary power grab that will screw us over no matter what happens.

We are being played by the people who run the world. Just like US Citizens are being played if you think Obama and Romney aren't working for the same overall masters using US Citizens and elections and wedge issues and Right versus Left politics as distractions to keep our eyes off the (same) man behind the curtain.

I jumped in on this because I foolishly thought Wikipedia was one of the very few hopes going forward for free information exchange without ugly pre-cut agendas. WRONG. They are as dirty as the rest of them.

Brian

Ben,

That is great to hear and thanks for sharing! I've stopped counting how many of my articles, posts and quotes (which annoy me most when they are not credited to me!! argh!!!) are stolen and reposted all over the net. Perhaps next time I come across them I will try your approach. Thank you very much!

Brian

John V: As I said before your post, I am aware of the danger the bills, as written, posed. But those bills already weren't going to get through the Republican controlled House. (Ironic the support was in the Democrat controlled Senate and most of those who backed off after being alerted to the problems were Republicans as the Democrats are still interested in passing it). The Republican House stood against it. I think Obama changed his initial support to be against it as well. However, the impartial collective Wikipedia stepped way out of bounds in my opinion and I haven't seen evidence to change my mind. They insist on equal time/even handedness and no bias in their pages (though it still leans way left but alas) yet they essentially lobbied on one side of an issue and in this case they lobbied against people who create and/or own content. Since all their content is donated to them, that seems awfully opportunistic of them when most of their competition (i.e. places with published info sources they had to pay for, most of which are ripped off, rewritten and rehashed on Wikipedia as free content) needs to protect their content of all types because original content is expensive as hell to produce. But prevent any means of protecting that content and no one can possibly compete with free, occasionally accurate content.

But it's nice to see you side with the conservatives for once. Rep Issa (R) appreciates your support.

I've donated money to Wikipedia, and I want them to remain neutral. They are speaking for all their collective contributors which make Wikipedia what it is. However they certainly didn't take a vote from us (yes, I have contributed writing, editing etc to them as well as money). Non-profits are not supposed to lobby or pick sides.

Brian

PS to John V:

The REAL culprits are massive corporations set up to easily steal content, make bucks off it, get caught, cry that they didn't upload it, remove it and keep the money. Repeat this millions and millions and millions of times and count their piles of cash. YouTube anyone? Type in the name of any song commercially released and most likely it is there right now, not once or twice, but in hundreds of examples. If there's no penalty to YouTube, they'll continue to rake in the cash while no one pays for the use.

In my view, if a company derives income from infringement (simply use page views times cost per ad on that specific infringing page to start with) they should have to pay it to the owners. If they are repeat offenders, they pay more. If they are massive offenders, they then face big fines and shut down. That seems fair. They choose to allow an open, un-monitored submission system in which they profit off of stolen material. The least they should have to do is pay the income they made from it when they are caught? Isn't that fair? It's all rhetorical of course. Google and the other massive giants are all above the law now. Literally. Much more powerful than any/all world governments.

Brian

Actually Brian, Youtube does pay for content..but you have to part of their partner programs or something similar. I also recall them signing licensing deals with some of the majors.

DIRECTLY FROM YOUTUBE FAQs
We take copyright very seriously. We've built groundbreaking technology for copyright holders that we call Content ID, a sophisticated set of tools that helps them find their content on YouTube and gives them the choice of what to do when they find it: block it, leave it up, or make money from it. Content ID scans over 100 years of video every day and is used by over 1000 partners, including every major US network broadcaster, movie studio, and record label. In addition, if a user feels that a video is violating their copyright, they can flag the video and select "infringes my copyright" from the list of options for review by the YouTube team. If a user feels they have wrongly received a DMCA copyright takedown they can file a counter-notice (more details on counter-filing can be found here).



Your point is valid though.

There are indexing sites like fastpass, sidereal and surfthechannel that provide links to sites like megavideo and videobb which host the video files.

All make money via advertising, and all of them have clearly posted copyright policies...but you can find near anything there. Sometimes content gets removed, but I don't think they go after those who uploaded the files and indexed them.

And yes, copyright infringement is rampant on the web and current legislation can't seem to control it. I don't know what the answer is, but it is not SOPA or PIPA. I do think it has to be a worldwide initiative, not something dictated by the US to the rest of the world.

And you say it's nice I'm on the conservative side here. I've said this before. I am neither left nor right. That to me is a simpleton's way of polarizing viewpoints and it is insidious in the baggage it carries.

I am above all a pragmatist and believer in realpolitik. Deal with the real issues and deal with them using practical plans that work, not with idealogical frameworks.

I support the protests. As far as I see it, this is concerning the free information flow on the Internet, and not about piracy.

We have plenty of documentation over here, that says the music consumers under 30 are willing to pay plenty to use streaming services ect. It's all about a format that works for them, not about getting things for free at all.

I believe the piracy issue is used as a convenient argument to rob control over channels of free speech and free flow of information.

It's about the principle, and if the free principle is broken, no matter who benefits more or less as is, the new principle is control in one way or another.

This does concern the world wide community, not just the US, but I'm concerned that a bill like this risk to isolate the US from the world community, as there are no way a bill like that could pass in the European Union.

justmyoverseascent

There may be a bit of trouble in Paradise. The Senator, or former Senator, Chris Dodd, is warning Obama to not Veto this bill or Political donations, from the Hollywood Elite will dry up. And so it goes.

But it doesn't matter much anymore...first off, they already gave him more this year than they did in all of his prior election cycle. Second, Hollywood is not likely to suddenly turn conservative just because they're annoyed with Obama. Obama has this one last election to worry about, and he's just as beholden to tech companies and the perception that he backs internet freedoms than he is to protecting intellectual property. So he says, basically, "I'm all in favor of this just so long as it doesn't hinder a free and open internet." Dodd/Valenti is pissed and is basically saying "How dare you, I thought we paid you off!"

That's not entirely true. Non-profits are permitted to lobby, but they have limits on the amount they can spend on lobbying, and the non-profit's primary activity can't be lobbying (that's what PACs are for).

I suspect Wikipedia is a magnet for all kinds of lawsuits, so I'm guessing they have lawyers who advised them on the legality of their blackout protest.

Overll, I'd have to agree with the protests.

A protest is precisely that, it just says that the underlying principle upon which the legislation is based is flawed, and has the potential for abuse by governments.

It's all stupid anyway. The internet is set up in such a matrix pattern, that regional censorship is virtually impossible anyway, unless you shut down every server in a given country.

We had a similar Bill proposed here in Oz. I don't think it passed ( perhaps it's ongoing ) as the tech people just laughed at it, and called the proposers a bunch of Luddites.

Sure, the copyright issue needs to be dealt with, but it would be easier dealt with by watermarking for example. Also, the industry is rapidly moving towards a streaming only model where everyone gets paid. ( Not much, my streaming revenue for the last 6 months was about $48 )

In the end, content will just move where it can. I wonder how the weather is in the Ukraine at the moment ?

cheers, niteshift

But Brian, it's not lobbying. That's the distinction I'm trying to point out here. Lobbying refers to companies going directly to elected representatives and trying to influence them, either through money, favors, or both. That's what lobbying is, by definition. If I try to convince everyone on this forum to vote Democrat, I'm not lobbying. If Wikipedia tries to convince their users that a particular piece of legislation is bad, THAT'S not lobbying. That's freedom of speech; basic democracy.

Lobbying is a different beast, and a very bad one. It's bad because the purpose of elected representatives should be to reflect the will of all people equally. One person, one vote. Lobbying distorts that by allowing the very wealthy and powerful to influence those elected representatives to pay more attention to THEIR desires than the desires of everyone else. And it's usually extraordinarily lopsided, ie. it's something only a tiny fraction of constituents would REALLY want.

So no, Wikipedia is NOT as "dirty" as the rest of them. They're exercising their right to freedom of speech on their own private website. Don't give up hope on them.



That's also not entirely accurate. There's a reason why every tech professional out there was afraid of these bills. The bills dealt with censorship of entire domain names, which is very possible. All domains on the Internet are administered by an American corporation. You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbers

Censoring domains would be extraordinarily effective, and is a very frightening prospect.

Andrew,

Actually there was a story last night on CNN which vindicated to me that I am not the only one who feels this way. They made many of the same points I did and even went to far as to say Wikipedia can't do something like this a second time. They did, however, mention a "vote" but as a registered member a donator to them, I never saw any offer of a vote? Did any of you?

I have been told regularly that I can NOT make a "call to action" on behalf of anyone who gives us money if I go non profit. I can't support a vote on a cause, or tell people to buy a product etc. without jeopardizing my status. Now let's assume for the sake of discussion that Wikipedia found a way to wiggle through that legally. They still broke the spirit of that law. And they took a position of pure self interest of their biggest financial supporters which include many of the other corporations they were protesting with/for.

In the end, this is just a power grab by two sides, both of which want to screw the little guys and gals while using those same guys and gals to make their argument.

By the way, if a site is a serial infringer (i.e. millions of times without significant policy or tech changes to try and prevent it) I think the death penalty should be on the table for sure. If people act badly enough, they face life in prison or even death. Why shouldn't a website face a similar penalty? When corporations act badly and outside the law with no fear of significant recourse by anyone and who are SOOO powerful they can literally overthrow governments (as Google, Facebook, Twitter and others have claimed around the world during the Arab spring) the people (i.e. the government) should be able to black out their power over their country. If google is proven to be falsely skewing searches to push an election or issue in their favored way, that's JUST as scary (actually MORE scary) than an elected government choosing to shut THEM down. Who should have more power, a private corporation, or the people of a country?

Think about it. Sometimes censorship isn't as cut and dry and Google participates in censorship every single day on a wide number of issues as do the few other search options that exist who are in the same silicon valley mindset/power group.

Brian

Magne,

The problem is that the owner of content may choose NOT to participate in a technology or method of delivery even if that is what the market (i.e. buyers) demand. And they should have the full right to say no and not be forced by the public to sell it their way. So it's not just a matter of finding the right process that "works for them" it's about protecting the rights of the creator to say "NO! I AM NOT INTERESTED IN BEING INVOLVED IN THIS METHOD OF COMMERCE!" and having their material left alone, piracy free. The problem is that scumbags believe they have a "right" to get whatever song or movie or book on THEIR terms. They do not. And we should all work to make sure they maintain that right.

Brian

Harry Reid has put this bill on the back burner for now. It appears a lot of people either don't understand what this bill is about, or don't care.

This bill is a further attempt to combat intelletucal property theft by enities from outside the countries that have signed the Berne Agreement. Most Western Nations have already signed the agreement of which includes the United States, the United Kingdom, probaly most of Western Europe. In those countries applying the law is avaliable. The Justice Department Action to shut down Megaupload.com was filed, I think in Australia. This new Bill isn't needed in this Action because Australa is part of the United Kingdom, a signer of the Berne Agreement.

Therefore those Web Sites that flaunt Copyright Law will be allowed to be blocked or shut down by this new Bill.

If I remeber correctly, there were music Web Sites here that were finally shut down for copyright infringment. They thought they could buy one copy of a CD and sell all the copies they wanted, without paying a license ann consequently no royalities.

If you write a hit song, or develop some intellectual property you would want to reap some of the fruits of your labor so why do some of you protest this law?

The truth lies behind the path the money follows.

Ray
I don't think folks are against having a law to stop the piracy.

I tried to read the damn thing and like most of these bills I just got lost in it. I can't understand why our Congress cannot write a bill that says what it will and won't do without a bunch of nebulous, confusing Bullshit.
Why can't they write a bill that addresses the problem directly. I know it is possible but they sure as hell can't seem to do it.

This bill is so vague it scares the hell out of left wingers who what everything to be free and doesn't place the enforcement direct enough for the right wingers.

That's the problem.

Write a bill that says if you sell copyrighted intellectual property without permission we will put your ass in jail for 10 years without parole and confiscate everything you own and no one will have an excuse to whine about it one way or another.
Except maybe the lefties who think jail is cruel and unusual punishment.

And for the multibillion dollar sites that claim they will be punished for what someone else does on their site I say bullshit. They have the resources to police their sites they just don't want to do it.