Wikipedia blackout

[Dave Morgan 68]

Hi.Just got out of work & came down to the library to look up some obscure bands I've been trying to track down and came across this...http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackoutI haven't read any further than the Wikimedia page but find myself in a very ambivalent mood regarding the proposed measures (or goals). Anti-piracy... great. Anti-freedom... erm, no.Does anyone have a good strong opinion to help me settle into a groove?Cheers,D

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Well it will kill craigslist and wikipedia. I don't think it will go through though. There is too much opposition.

[Dave Morgan 68]

Well it will kill craigslist and wikipedia. I don't think it will go through though. There is too much opposition.

Blimey, you don't hang about do you!I really hope you're right. Killing off the biggest public compendia is surely retrograde, and difficult to paint in a good light.D

[Captain_Barfbag 31]

The intent is good, but the implementation clearly shows little understanding of the technology. Not surprising, since laws are written by lawyers and not technical people.This is roughly equivalent to stopping drive-by shootings by telling General Motors that they must stop people with guns from riding in cars.

[ZachLW 37]

Well it will kill craigslist and wikipedia. I don't think it will go through though. There is too much opposition.

Something tells me it's here to stay. In one form or another, it will go through.

The intent is good, but the implementation clearly shows little understanding of the technology. Not surprising, since laws are written by lawyers and not technical people.This is roughly equivalent to stopping drive-by shootings by telling General Motors that they must stop people with guns from riding in cars.

I wish I could say I think it's misunderstanding. Instead, it's written just the way someone in particular wants it to be. There's a reoccurring theme here in the States of bills coming about in legislation that stomp the rights of citizens blatantly.I'm sure it won't be long before this thread is closed. Edited January 17, 2012 by ZachLW

[mgh 89]

Last year a UK court had already ordered btinternet.com (the UK's largest ISP) to block access to a site with links to pirated movies

[JoTayhen 6]

Kind of a thorny issue. As litigious as society has become, I really don't know how you're ever going to be able to safely operate such a site without some type of statutory indemnification. The problem is being artfull enough to generate the necessary legal framework.Some would suggest that any site that offers the ability for individuals to openly violate copyright statutes should be held accountable to at least some degree.Others would suggest that the responsible and therefore the accountable parties are limited to the individuals who are directly responsible for those violations.Even if the latter was true, does the web-site then have some responsibility to remove the offensive content? And, if so, how much responsibility. With the sites we are talking about I believe even that relatively modest amount of responsibility could prove to be devastating.I guess we will just have to wait and see.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

I'm sure it won't be long before this thread is closed.

What makes you say that?There are two pieces of legislation going through their courses at the moment. O'Bama has indicated that he will probably not sign them into law.

[ZachLW 37]

What makes you say that?

The inevitable wrong turn these threads take!

[mgh 89]

This is roughly equivalent to stopping drive-by shootings by telling General Motors that they must stop people with guns from riding in cars.

No it isn't. ISPs can stop access to pirate sites .

[Captain_Barfbag 31]

No it isn't. ISPs can stop access to pirate sites .

But, Wikipedia is not an ISP, is it? The argument being made by Wikipedia and others is that the legislation might be interpreted as requiring them to insure that such sites can't be accessed through their own sites. This would require any web hosting company to follow every link on their sites, and any subsequent links on those sites and so on, to verify that it isn't eventually bringing the user to a pirate site.Governments a long time ago turned a blind eye to spammers and scammers. Here and particularly abroad, it got completely out of hand. Now, our government is trying ot put the responsibility for cleaning up this mess on the honest companies in the middle.

[mgh 89]

But, Wikipedia is not an ISP, is it? The argument being made by Wikipedia and others is that the legislation might be interpreted as requiring them to insure that such sites can't be accessed through their own sites. This would require any web hosting company to follow every link on their sites, and any subsequent links on those sites and so on, to verify that it isn't eventually bringing the user to a pirate site.Governments a long time ago turned a blind eye to spammers and scammers. Here and particularly abroad, it got completely out of hand. Now, our government is trying ot put the responsibility for cleaning up this mess on the honest companies in the middle.

Then where's the problem? Wikipedia can provide links to pirate sites and the ISPs can block access. Site acces is via ISPs not Wikipedia - as you say it's not an ISP.

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

Oh God, how am I going to do my homework tomorrow?!?!? :(

[Cessnaflyer 56]

If you want pirated stuff that is what mirrors and torrents are for.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

Obama won't sign the bill. I guess there is one thing he did good in 4 years. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/