| This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 48 ( 1  ) || |
|Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales defends SOPA protest blackout|
System: The following message was cut out of thread at: http://www.webmasterworld.com/webmaster/4407384.htm [webmasterworld.com] by engine - 2:01 pm on Jan 17, 2012 (utc 0)
Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales defends SOPA protest blackout [telegraph.co.uk]
|Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has defended the decision to blackout the website around the world tomorrow, despite other American technology companies refusing to follow suit. |
|He said: “The general sentiment seemed to be that US law, as it impacts the internet, can affect everyone. |
“As for me, what I am hoping is that people outside the US who have friends or family who are voters in the US, will ask them to make a call to their senator or representative, and I hope we send a broad global message that the internet as a whole will not tolerate censorship in response to mere allegations of copyright infringement.”
|I have to say I'm disappointed that folks here aren't talking about this more. Less than a page of comments? Really? This law is against all of our interests as well as being completely wrong. I'm amazed this community isn't more fired up about it. |
Well, for a few reasons.
1) The bill has already been denounced by Obama and the representative who came up with it has trashed it as well. So these blackouts are late to the party, they aren't needed.
2) After the elections this bill will just come up again and again, in lesser forms. Eventually it will pass, and they will pick and pick at the internet as it is currently until it comes down.
3) Some people feel that Wikipedia isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. I enjoy using Wikipedia, but let's face it, their business model is using other people's content to turn a profit. Instead of 10,000 sites making money with info about 10,000 topics, we now have Wikipedia taking the content/visitors from those sites and making massive amounts of money for only a few people.
Microsoft Opposes SOPA [seattletimes.nwsource.com]
|Microsoft isn't taking that public a route but it has issued a statement saying: |
|We oppose the passage of the SOPA bill as currently drafted. We think the White House statement points in a constructive way to problems with the current legislation, the need to fix them, and the opportunity for people on all sides to talk together about a better path forward." |
It is interesting that some are taking action and others are simply putting out statements. I guess the statement is all that's needed in this instance.
Official White House statement, for those that want to read it.
The bulk of the general public do not have a clue as to what is going on or why this is being done. That being said, these "protests" are rather hollow, IMHO.
|The bulk of the general public do not have a clue as to what is going on or why this is being done. |
That's the whole point, to tell them.
|Some people feel that Wikipedia isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. |
What does that have to do with it? You don't have to be a fan of Wiki or Google to recognize that they happen to be on the right side of this issue.
As for the rest, StoutFiles, your points 1 and 2 kind of cancel each other out, don't they?
Short list of who blacked out:
|The day the Internet is on strike |
SOPA and PROTECT-IP (also known as "PIPA"), along with the OPEN Act are bills currently in Congress, which threaten the very existence of the web. It will enable rights holders to legitimately -- and even fradulantly -- shut down websites that allegedly infringe copyright. They are censorship bills.
Today, the web has fallen silent, blacked out its pages, become dark, and effectively gone on strike. From Wikipedia to Google, even Firefox users are affected, as are other major online communities.
Read more on SOPA here.
This gallery will show you some of the major websites that have gone dark or offline today.
With Wikipedia Blacked out for the day, what will all the cybernazi nerds who undo peoples contributions all day have to do?
Maybe they can become DMOZ/ODP editors?
really, hate to argue but anything that protects the IP of the original creator is a good thing.
|they happen to be on the right side of this issue |
You only have to look at the people creating the "noise" to see what large corporations are afraid of what impact it will have/would have had on their $'s of revenue.
Which is why facebook and twitter don't care that much.
I agree. You beat me to it!
I found a lot of good, reliable, respected "alternative" information today such as from this site:
|What does that have to do with it? You don't have to be a fan of Wiki or Google to recognize that they happen to be on the right side of this issue. |
As for the rest, StoutFiles, your points 1 and 2 kind of cancel each other out, don't they?
Wikipedia and Google are still the largest companies that thrive on content that isn't theirs. Whether they're supporting the right thing is inconsequential, they're supporting what keeps them alive.
1 and 2 do not cancel each other out.
1) This bill was defeated before today, so no reason to get excited.
2) Other bills will come up under the radar next year leading to a change in the internet so no reason to get excited.
One Bill I'd like to see is the one that says that If you are in Data Mining Biz for whatever reason, IP or otherwise, You must disclose your IP(4 or 6) Ranges and purpose, before the operation starts. And if failed the Operation to be shut down with in X amount of hours since first reported. Better Yet, ISPs should be on the hook for ensuring that the client is following, by LAW, proper NET Etiquette Evenduar theory, thus making it clear what happened before the game had started.
Otherwise any Dush could start IP company, get invested, and make a name for them selves on controversy, which no one wants in real life anyway.
|hate to argue but anything that protects the IP of the original creator is a good thing |
I love to argue, and that's just silly on its face. By that logic shutting down the internet completely would be the ideal solution, since then nobody would have the means to copy content on a large scale.
You don't actually believe that anything that protects IP is a good thing. What you believe is that anything reasonable that protects IP is a good thing, and these laws are not remotely reasonable, for all kinds of obvious reasons. The provision to demand the denial of DNS to alleged infringers alone is enough to make the idea completely untenable, not to mention the incredible mess it would be to try to sort out who is linking to whom.
|What does that have to do with it? You don't have to be a fan of Wiki or Google to recognize that they happen to be on the right side of this issue |
In your opinion. ;)
|By that logic shutting down the internet completely would be the ideal solution, since then nobody would have the means to copy content on a large scale |
I love to argue, and that's just silly on its face.
Well, my traffic and revenue was up yesterday by about 15%.
Will Wikipedia be protesting more? I hope sooner than later... ;)
Yes, I know. My point is it usually makes little sense to make sweeping generalizations like "anything that protects IP is a good thing." It's not usually a good idea to get so focused on one objective that you pursue it at the expense of everything else. There needs to be a balance between protecting creative work and allowing the free exchange of information.
P.S. of course everything I say is my opinion, but you're right to point it out -- I should have included "IMO." Let me phrase it differently: you don't have to be a fan of Wiki or Google to be on the same side of a particular political issue. It is reasonable to oppose something if you believe it's wrong, even if you normally disagree with others who also oppose it. For example, this is probably the first time I've ever agreed with the Cato Institute. I think they are wrong about just about everything - that doesn't mean I think they are wrong about this.
This is a bill that allows the US Legal system to effectively suspend or shut down valuable properties of non-US organisations without recourse.
Whether you consider Wikipedia as an IP thief or not, a bill like this could fundamentally shift the paradigm of net neutrality and it would not be long before other governments tried to re-assert control by creating their own version of a new fragmented web.
The US legal system and copyright owners would be even less able to assert their ownership in this environment.
This is a short-sighted blunt instrument that will immeasurably damage US business both in creative industries and technology industries.
The US has the privilege of running the web right now from which it benefits greatly. It should act carefully with that responsibility. Learn the lessons of GPS.
|2) Other bills will come up under the radar next year leading to a change in the internet so no reason to get excited. |
As I said before, SOPA will be back in a different form. Things are going to change whether we want them to or not.
| This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 48 ( 1  ) |