News - Wikipedia considers Total Blackout in fight against SOPA

[HEXUS]

SOPA anti-piracy bill to be voted on later this week.

Read more.

[crossy]

We haven't spoken too much about the SOPA here at HEXUS, the Act seemed so extreme that we were unsure that it would reach this stage in the US legal system.

Hmm, looks like "no-one should be surprised at the level of stupidity in the US political system"

Must admit that this is the first time that I've heard of this too (thanks Hexus) and to be honest Wikipedia's proposed action sounds quite reasonable and proportionate to me. As to "it's a political stance", I remain very unconvinced since it's only this bill/act that is being objected to.

Actually, with one exception, I can't see anyone being pleased with this. Big businesses especially I'm sure are going to be "delighted" (sarcasm) that they're going to be held responsible for the action of their employees.

The exception of which I speak is of course the folks who want the "Ministry of Truth" since this seems to me to be what we're heading towards. Just wish there was more than I could do to fight this.

[kalniel]

We've been working hard to increase the quality of Wikipedia articles so that people can take some of them seriously (explaining science to the lay person for example). Stunts like this will just destroy trust and hinder us massively.

[Biscuit]

Support for the idea from the Wikipedia community has been overwhelmingly positive, though some question the appropriateness of Wikipedia taking a political stance, given that the site prides itself on producing content that is delivered from a neutral standpoint; however, as Jimmy reminds those in the US "Time is not on our side here," as the SOPA is being fast-tracked through Congress at an alarming rate.

I would have thought if they want to keep the ability to actually remain neutral, a protest is the best option. I don't see how this stunt would damage trust, if anything it should give people more trust as it shows Wikipedia is against content being filtered.

[chuckskull]

If I wasn't such a draconian bill, with the ability to affect Wikipedia directly, I think I'd probably agree with you Kal.

[Hoonigan]

Will this effect us in the UK? If so, how?! I don't see David Cameron creating laws to hinder the lives of American's, so why can't they keep their noses out of our lives?

[Biscuit]

I dont think it directly affects us but the US are forced to censor their websites to such drastic levels and traffic is so heavily monitored it may make the internet less 'free' as a whole.
Its also worth pointing out that if this gets pushed through in the US it sets a precedent for the rest of the western world.

[Hoonigan]

I read this not long ago, which worries me, a lot.

If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media companies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed from the internet and not just in the US.

[aidanjt]

Will this effect us in the UK? If so, how?!

Yes, and simple, the entire name and number system is rooted in America. While they would have a hard time with interfering with .co.$tld and other such national domains, .net .org .com etc are very much within their sphere of influence.

I don't see David Cameron creating laws to hinder the lives of American's, so why can't they keep their noses out of our lives?

I'm sure the folks in the Middle East are wondering the same thing.

[TheAnimus]

Is this the same wikipedia that has iritating donation drives at the top of articles saying how they are un-influenced by commercial and political forces?

hmm.

[Biscuit]

Is this the same wikipedia that has iritating donation drives at the top of articles saying how they are un-influenced by commercial and political forces?

hmm.

But if the bill goes through they will be forced into influce by political forces. The donations (as i understand it) are so that they can maintain running costs without sponsorship/ads. I don't think its for profit.

[crossy]

Will this effect us in the UK? If so, how?! I don't see David Cameron creating laws to hinder the lives of American's, so why can't they keep their noses out of our lives?

My reading of the article (and the odd piece elsewhere now) is that it will hit the UK:

To counter notify against a claim, websites must concede jurisdiction, something most sane owners of foreign sites are unlikely to do.

Take - as an example - Hexus decides to run a piece that shows how the latest Universal BluRay has been trashing players (purely hypotethical example!!!) and discusses how this is due to the new protection scheme implemented. Universal objects to this on the basis that it discusses that protection scheme and work arounds to get the disk playing. Universal then gets an order under SOPA and gets all US ISP's to block Hexus - unless the Hexus admins agree to be governed by US law.

Second example - Virgin Media does something to annoy one of the great and good in RIAA. Again, the blocks are put in place - result, no one on Virgin's broadband service is allowed to access US-hosted sites.

(If I've got any of the above wrong then please feel free to correct me - politely!). Maybe I'm going over the top, but this "jurisdiction" provision sounds very much like extortion to me.

What really gets me is that the US has the temerity to be severely critical of British/Scottish law, and then they go and trot out this kind of nonsense...

[GingerNinjaRay]

Well when you put it like that it sounds pretty bad!

[chuckskull]

Looks like this is going ahead; https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/s...71314449809409

[aidanjt]

SOPA is being shelved, now all eyes are on the US Senate's Protect IP Act, and the National Defence Authorisation Act.

[mycarsavw]

Looks like this is going ahead; https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/s...71314449809409

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/...-SOPA_blackout