Wikipedia's blackout effort sends the wrong message.
-
Interesting. Does not communist China (for one) regulate Internet communications in and out of their country? And I am sure they are not the only ones.
Indeed they do, but the US is determined to outdo even China, by applying such restrictions to the entire world rather than just the US. It makes it seem very hypocritical when they criticise countries around the world for restricting access to the internet. The argument that its not the government who chooses, but the copyright holders doesn't wash, as the government is largely owned by big business anyway.
-
Funny that a site where the contributions of information come from the populace of the world can simply, at any time, keep that information from the populace of the world. Govt watchdogging is all well and good but who is watching the watchdogs? :)
I think that was intentional - they're trying to give a taste of what the internet may be like if this stupid legislation goes through.
-
The fact that the black-screen-of-protest can so easily be circumvented sends out a message that I'm sure SOPA/PIPA supporters will use. Namely
"It doesn't matter if the odd site gets taken down those clever internet users will find a way to continue working."
I didn't even see the message until I deliberately turned off NoScript so that I could see what they had done. For protests of this type to be effective, they must be real. Difficult for a commercial organization to justify for money many reasons but for a Not For Profit outfit like Wiki they should have really gone dark.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
I don't think so. They weren't trying to force anyone to do anything nor really block people out. They were trying to raise awareness, get people to see these bills Congress was trying to slip through for Murdoch & Co., that would bypass due process and allow them to take down entire domains based on allegations of copyright infringement or if they linked to someone that was suspected, much like a patriot act against copyright infringement, immunizing ISPs from invasion of privacy and suppressing freedom of speech, and the burden would be on the small blog owner to prove the ISP intentionally violating their rights to press charges. They are horrible bills and the fact that Congress was going to pass them for their Hollywood and recording industry lobbyists after a $95M lobby effort without even understanding them is fricken insane. There are already laws and processes for copyright infringement. This was to get rid of the burden of proof and take people down on suspicions and allegations, which is always bad. Wikipedia blackout wasn't "bypassed", their page clearly told you how to do it and that they were not trying to block you completely, just raise awareness.
-
It isn't just wikipedia doing this. I haven't even looked at Wikipedia to be honest. I've been looking at secure (non-photocopiable) barcode generation of all things and the first three sites I tried were blacked out. Yes I would have loved to do this yesterday but I got the documentation this morning and I have a call about it later today. Just here to rant.
Well, the point was that many of the blacked out sites were trying to show what it would be like without them or things like them. Those bills directly threatened people's ability to make information available, since hollywood and RIAA could take them down by posting a few links and making allegations. Even without links the burden of proof and due process would be removed, and little companies don't have the team of lawyers to fight them and eventually get their website back. Copyright troll heaven is what they were trying to create, locking and jacking up the cost of information for everyone. If any sites you really like were affected, it's a wake up call to watch Congress closely, since they can't agree on anything for the people, but give them a few million and they'll pass anything they don't understand without our watchful eye.
-
That's my thought exactly. It smacks of cultural imperialism to legislate to introduce a law that affects more than your own country. Such an action should require approval of the UN General Assembly.
Quite I couldn't have put it better myself legislation with possible International effects should be dealt with Internationally.
-
They could at least disabled search optimization... Annoing to waist your time going to a site that says it has info and then get a crappy message. There can always be another wikipedia... They aren't all that. I feel that they were being arrogant in there statement they were trying to make.... "We're wiki and we're so great". Maybe they forgot that it is the people that puts their time and effort into putting the knowledge up. My 2cents... Maybee little harsh and all.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." << please vote!! >>
They were protecting themselves and all sites like them. If they hadn't taken a stand, we couldn't have a wikipedia without the stamp and approval of MPAA and RIAA and Murdoch crony approval. I hardly appreciated them before now I realize, and if anyone bothered to read their statement they gave you multiple ways around the blackout explaining they were not trying to really block you, just raise awareness to these bills that I consider corporate fascism at it's finest, right under everyone's noses. Later Congress is surprised that people cared about these "innocuous" bills they apparently didn't' even understand. I bet the lobbyists putting words in their hands understood them. It just bugs me they waste months blocking each other's bills to help real people with payroll tax extensions from even being heard until the last minute and some big execs hand them a mandate and both houses and parties have bills out the door as soon as the gates open for the session, as real problems kicked down the corner are not even addressed.
-
I think that was intentional - they're trying to give a taste of what the internet may be like if this stupid legislation goes through.
-
There is an alternative: books. Let's just hope they don't pass (more) laws banning those too. Also, if you use a resource frequently enough that your day to day job can't be done in the absence of it, make a pdf. Unrelated: remember the good ol' days when you could just download MSDN?
Books are good, unless you get 2 hours notice to research a subject and can't pop down to the library, use the card catalog, hope they have the book in, read it to find the pertinant information, write that up, and make it back in time for the meeting. And that is if the book is up to date on the current information.
-
Well, the point was that many of the blacked out sites were trying to show what it would be like without them or things like them. Those bills directly threatened people's ability to make information available, since hollywood and RIAA could take them down by posting a few links and making allegations. Even without links the burden of proof and due process would be removed, and little companies don't have the team of lawyers to fight them and eventually get their website back. Copyright troll heaven is what they were trying to create, locking and jacking up the cost of information for everyone. If any sites you really like were affected, it's a wake up call to watch Congress closely, since they can't agree on anything for the people, but give them a few million and they'll pass anything they don't understand without our watchful eye.
-
That's all well and good, but... would you mind explaining that to my boss? He seemed more interested on getting the information we needed for a call involving a lot of money.
-
That's all well and good, but... would you mind explaining that to my boss? He seemed more interested on getting the information we needed for a call involving a lot of money.
I understand if you are talking about sites other than wikipedia though. Not everyone made it clear to bypass or gave permission, and that was their right to do so in the face of legislation threatening their existence. Wikipedia was pretty classy about it I thought giving advanced notice and explaining to anyone who saw the notice how to turn it off.
-
While I admit that I haven't read the legislation (I've got better things to do) I supported the protest based on my general libertarian stance. But I do agree with you that work still needs to be done. And the website nonsense is a litle annoying.
I have read parts of the legislation, at least the parts which can affect me and I think the legislation is a horrible thing which is far to vague, something a few lawyer friends of mine agree on. I supported the protest and I think that it was a great idea to show that we the people are outraged. The implementation of the protest could have used a little more though. In the end, I still have to show up for work and get things done.
-
The fact that the black-screen-of-protest can so easily be circumvented sends out a message that I'm sure SOPA/PIPA supporters will use. Namely
"It doesn't matter if the odd site gets taken down those clever internet users will find a way to continue working."
I didn't even see the message until I deliberately turned off NoScript so that I could see what they had done. For protests of this type to be effective, they must be real. Difficult for a commercial organization to justify for money many reasons but for a Not For Profit outfit like Wiki they should have really gone dark.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
We should have bribed the DNS root admins to censor the entire US government, instead.
When posting here, I do not represent anybody but myself.
-
I understand if you are talking about sites other than wikipedia though. Not everyone made it clear to bypass or gave permission, and that was their right to do so in the face of legislation threatening their existence. Wikipedia was pretty classy about it I thought giving advanced notice and explaining to anyone who saw the notice how to turn it off.
Like I said in a post above, I hadn't even gone to wikipedia yesterday so couldn't speak to how they were handling things. Google handled it pretty classy with their doodle, turning down their crawler so it didn't negatively affect those who were participating in the protests. They showed they were not happy with the legislation, provided a method on how to contact your representatives, and didn't inconvenience their customers. All the sites I had a problem with were non-wiki. I agree with the principle of the protest, it was the implementation that drove me nuts. Think of it in a real world perspective. You were a dock worker out near Oakland, all the protesters come down and block the way in and out of the port, your boss tells you that because you can't get work done, he isn't going to pay you. A little more extreme than in my case, but I didn't have the requested information for a meeting. It reflected poorly upon me for a situation that was out of my control. If I had to make a snap recommendation, by participating in that protest yesterday I could not recommend any of the technologies on sites that were blacked out and did not provide an alternative. Fortunately I didn't have to make a snap decision.
-
Like I said in a post above, I hadn't even gone to wikipedia yesterday so couldn't speak to how they were handling things. Google handled it pretty classy with their doodle, turning down their crawler so it didn't negatively affect those who were participating in the protests. They showed they were not happy with the legislation, provided a method on how to contact your representatives, and didn't inconvenience their customers. All the sites I had a problem with were non-wiki. I agree with the principle of the protest, it was the implementation that drove me nuts. Think of it in a real world perspective. You were a dock worker out near Oakland, all the protesters come down and block the way in and out of the port, your boss tells you that because you can't get work done, he isn't going to pay you. A little more extreme than in my case, but I didn't have the requested information for a meeting. It reflected poorly upon me for a situation that was out of my control. If I had to make a snap recommendation, by participating in that protest yesterday I could not recommend any of the technologies on sites that were blacked out and did not provide an alternative. Fortunately I didn't have to make a snap decision.
I do hear you. I wish we were not in this situation at all. The sad fact is, the legislative pending would have done just what you don't want, sites taken out with no fair warning or notice, some likely for good. The bills were not about making copyright infringement illegal, as there are already laws about that and legal processes to use. This was about bypassing all those and making a MPAA, RIAA Murdoch mafia to appease or risk having your website shut down with no notice, allowing them to seize entire domains, immunizing ISPs from violating free speech and privacy, etc., and changing DNS to be less secure so they could have better off switches. I do understand what you are saying. If this legislation had passed many more websites would be much less reliable though.
-
Well, the point was that many of the blacked out sites were trying to show what it would be like without them or things like them. Those bills directly threatened people's ability to make information available, since hollywood and RIAA could take them down by posting a few links and making allegations. Even without links the burden of proof and due process would be removed, and little companies don't have the team of lawyers to fight them and eventually get their website back. Copyright troll heaven is what they were trying to create, locking and jacking up the cost of information for everyone. If any sites you really like were affected, it's a wake up call to watch Congress closely, since they can't agree on anything for the people, but give them a few million and they'll pass anything they don't understand without our watchful eye.
AA 2 wrote:
since they can't agree on anything for the people, but give them a few million and they'll pass anything they don't understand without our watchful eye.
Hey - look on the bright side: This is the only bi-partisan stuff they do!
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
I do hear you. I wish we were not in this situation at all. The sad fact is, the legislative pending would have done just what you don't want, sites taken out with no fair warning or notice, some likely for good. The bills were not about making copyright infringement illegal, as there are already laws about that and legal processes to use. This was about bypassing all those and making a MPAA, RIAA Murdoch mafia to appease or risk having your website shut down with no notice, allowing them to seize entire domains, immunizing ISPs from violating free speech and privacy, etc., and changing DNS to be less secure so they could have better off switches. I do understand what you are saying. If this legislation had passed many more websites would be much less reliable though.
I agree with what you have said. I also think that the MPAA/RIAA/etc. are still trying to use an outdated business model and demanding that our government legislate to protect them from having to innovate. If there was ever an example of why this is a horrible bit of legislation it was a few weeks ago. One of the RIAA members issued a takedown notice for a video of one of their artists, airing his opinions that had been posted to a site. The video was taken down even though they had NO right to demand such. When questioned by a judge, their reaction was pretty much "We do what we want! You aren't the boss of us!" Apparently a lot of people don't agree with the rant I posted above, but I still think I was justified in posting it. The bottom line of all this is, when you want to protest make sure you do not inconvenience the people who are around you. It just makes you look like a jerk who doesn't care about them. Raise awareness, encourage action, but never browbeat. That just makes it much easier to just walk away and ignore you.
-
I do hear you. I wish we were not in this situation at all. The sad fact is, the legislative pending would have done just what you don't want, sites taken out with no fair warning or notice, some likely for good. The bills were not about making copyright infringement illegal, as there are already laws about that and legal processes to use. This was about bypassing all those and making a MPAA, RIAA Murdoch mafia to appease or risk having your website shut down with no notice, allowing them to seize entire domains, immunizing ISPs from violating free speech and privacy, etc., and changing DNS to be less secure so they could have better off switches. I do understand what you are saying. If this legislation had passed many more websites would be much less reliable though.
Speaking of terrible legislation, let's match that with terrible court decisions! "Congress may take books, musical compositions and other works out of the public domain, where they can be freely used and adapted, and grant them copyright status again, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday." http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/supreme-court-rules-congress-can-re-copyright-public-domain-works.ars[^]
-
The fact that the black-screen-of-protest can so easily be circumvented sends out a message that I'm sure SOPA/PIPA supporters will use. Namely
"It doesn't matter if the odd site gets taken down those clever internet users will find a way to continue working."
I didn't even see the message until I deliberately turned off NoScript so that I could see what they had done. For protests of this type to be effective, they must be real. Difficult for a commercial organization to justify for money many reasons but for a Not For Profit outfit like Wiki they should have really gone dark.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
Actually, I think the message is right on point. Should any site be taken down, users, both legitimate and not, will take whatever means are necessary to circumvent the problem. Laws codify the punishment, but do not prevent the activity itself. A common joke that we make in the summertime when leaving the windows down in the car but locking the doors out of habit and someone mentions it, is to say "It keeps the honest people out."
I don't claim to be a know it all, for I know that I am not...
I usually have an answer though.
-
I agree with what you have said. I also think that the MPAA/RIAA/etc. are still trying to use an outdated business model and demanding that our government legislate to protect them from having to innovate. If there was ever an example of why this is a horrible bit of legislation it was a few weeks ago. One of the RIAA members issued a takedown notice for a video of one of their artists, airing his opinions that had been posted to a site. The video was taken down even though they had NO right to demand such. When questioned by a judge, their reaction was pretty much "We do what we want! You aren't the boss of us!" Apparently a lot of people don't agree with the rant I posted above, but I still think I was justified in posting it. The bottom line of all this is, when you want to protest make sure you do not inconvenience the people who are around you. It just makes you look like a jerk who doesn't care about them. Raise awareness, encourage action, but never browbeat. That just makes it much easier to just walk away and ignore you.
You are very right, the Fed/RIAA collaboration already abuses what power they have and are stretching to be less accountable for doing moreso. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml I wish everyone had stuck to Wikipedia style class though, giving easy options and express permission to bypass, but it's hard to get mad at anyone who with-held services they provide free every day to defend themselves and get people to notice. It seems like people will ignore anything as long as it doesn't inconvenience them right now. I can't get mad at the websites with-holding free services while Congress gets paid hundreds of thousands per person for bickering about nothing and everything, shutting down for early long long vacations, refusing to show up to vote when they don't have an argument or enough support, and then all of sudden sending these bills form both parties and both houses after the MIAA/RIAA woos them with hundreds of thousands of dollars and a multi-million dollar lobbying effort. I reserve my disgust and hard feelings for Congress that they would try to pull this and the mainstream "news" for downplaying what these bills really were so much.