The web unites to fight SOPA

The web unites to fight SOPA

news.techeye.net

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is joining activist groups online to quash the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act - and he is threatening to kill the English language version of the encyclopedia in retaliation.

Wales made the announcement through Wikipedia. He said it's a “very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia”.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.techeye.net
news.techeye.net

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Stop Online Piracy Act (Scary Facts)
Rupert Murdoch Lobbies Congress To Restrict Internet
Turning USA net into controlled net like China et al.

It wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia protested against law makers. As Wales proudly declared, a similar situation in Italy led to blanking the Italian language version, claiming that “the Italian Parliament backed down immediately”.

But the SOPA bill is even more contentious. Many internet companies and organisations are up in arms at measures that enforce strict and absurd laws on appeasing the Big Content industry. Its biggest critics argue that it will stifle the free nature of the internet itself.

While we as inhabitants of the internet landscape seem far removed from the 'emergency' big media sold (lobbied) to governments around the world; we seem also to be missing the larger point. But any commercial interest that is not "big media" seems to recognize it for what it is....

There have been many calls from those opposing the bill to help urge Congress members to vote against it.

Activist group Demand Progress has also called for web organisations to join to fight the bill, with 70 firms having signed up so far. Demand Progress also backed a bid by Senator Wyden to read out the names of all those against the bill in Congress to highlight the widespread anger at SOPA.

It has called on internet users to contact Congress by visiting America Censorship.

David Segal, Director at Demand Progress highlighted the effect Wikipedia would have in opposing the bill as strongly as Jimmy Wales wants to.

“It's imperative for companies and sites that would be harmed by this legislation to mobilize their user bases to fight back,” Segal told TechEye. “We'll be sending a strong statement about the unacceptability of governments' interference with Internet freedom, and it's the only way we can generate enough constituent contacts to beat the bill.”

Segal continued: “Wikipedia faces an existential threat if SOPA and bills like it become law. They'd have a tremendous impact if they were to go black this week.”

Many members have attempted to highlight the utter surrender to commerce Big Media is rapidly achieving - exclusively for themselves. And our so-called representatives are eager to accept the 'good will' of mega transnational corporations with deep pockets and powerful media influences... after all, that's who they really work for.

But if we are not prepared to challenge this one-sided legislation, we will soon find ourselves paying more, and more to them... for things they don't even create, own, or hold.

Our Justices call money "free speech" when it is used to promote political candidates... in those terms we are very nearly mute against the "sonic boom" huge companies can muster - much to the politicians' (and their party's) delight.



news.techeye.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

Found an additional article....

Internet pioneers oppose US online piracy bills

Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin looks on during a question and answer session during a special launch event in San Francisco, California, 2010. The founders of Craigslist, eBay, Google, Twitter, Yahoo! and other Internet giants expressed concern to the US Congress on Wednesday over legislation intended to crack down on online piracy.

The founders of Craigslist, eBay, Google, Twitter, Yahoo! and other Internet giants expressed concern to the US Congress on Wednesday over legislation intended to crack down on online piracy.

On the other side (supporting SOPA)

...The legislation has received the backing of Hollywood, the music industry, the Business Software Alliance, the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce and other groups....

I get the impression that the fight against SOPA will set up an international regulating body.

Sounds like a loose loose situation, like Republican-Democrat

Since my civil liberties will be removed in approximately 72 hours, I will do everything in my potential to collectively wake up more Americans to the Brave New world we are seeing unfold.

Nothing good can possibly come out of a bill so restrictive, nor its cousin in the Senate: Protect IP.

I think that something does need to be done about the proliferation of copyrighted material...but when we are allowing corporations and the entertainment industry to bully the average citizen and to decimate free speech and expression... there is something wrong.

Been seeing the ads popping up left and right on TV the past 2 weeks:




I will say this...
I agree that Copyright law desperately needs a major overhaul.

But,
I vehemently DO NOT support SOPA or PIPA.

Apparently 4chan and m00t are none too happy either.

Perhapsvisit the link and help out

reply to post by Maxmars


You're posting a lot of good threads lately. Just thought I'd say that.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is joining activist groups online to quash the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act - and he is threatening to kill the English language version of the encyclopedia in retaliation.

What a legend. At least there are some good people in positions of power that enable them to do something. And if Google and Yahoo are also against it, well I have a hard time believing this bill will pass. It's clear that the only people who want these bills to pass are people in the entertainment industry. I remember a thread the other day which stated the entertainment industry was making record profits (another good thread from you I think).

I also find it amazing that this thread hasn't had more response. This is huge.

edit: and it's not like they'll be able to stop torrent technology anyway. Until they figure out how to do that, there's no possible way to stop piracy. People will continue to share copyrighted files via torrents.

edit: actually that thread I was referring to was started by v1rtu0s0. Read it here:
Movie executives see record profits, salaries despite piracy fear-mongering

And obviously, if they are making record profits, this isn't really about the money. It's about control. The internet is way too open and free, it lets anyone in the world share information. They would rather it more like cable TV, where you have to purchase packages which come with a set amount of official channels.

reply to post by Domo1


Very interesting...is this legit?

reply to post by ltinycdancerg


Seems to be. Too little too late. I'm sad ATS hasn't had this stickied.

I love Electronic Frontier Foundation-
Have been a supporter/contributing member for awhile now.

If you're opposed to SOPA/PIPA, I recommend this as well:
Fight the Blacklist: A Toolkit for Anti-SOPA Activism

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
I get the impression that the fight against SOPA will set up an international regulating body.

Sounds like a loose loose situation, like Republican-Democrat

i meant lose lose stuation

Originally posted by ltinycdancerg
I love Electronic Frontier Foundation-
Have been a supporter/contributing member for awhile now.

If you're opposed to SOPA/PIPA, I recommend this as well:
Fight the Blacklist: A Toolkit for Anti-SOPA Activism

Cheers for that link. They actually provide a link to the letter that was written by Google, Yahoo, eBay, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, AOL, Mozilla and the Zynga Game Network. Here it is in full.

------------------------------------------------------------------
November 15, 2011

The Honorable Pat Leahy
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Lamar Smith
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers:

The undersigned Internet and technology companies write to express our concern with legislative
measures that have been introduced in the United States Senate and United States House of
Representatives, S. 968 (the “PROTECT IP Act”) and H.R. 3261 (the “Stop Online Piracy Act”).

We support the bills’ stated goals -- providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue”
websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the bills as
drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities,
private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. We
are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of
innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as
written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated
to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and
dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.

One issue merits special attention. We are very concerned that the bills as written would seriously
undermine the effective mechanism Congress enacted in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)
to provide a safe harbor for Internet companies that act in good faith to remove infringing content
from their sites. Since their enactment in 1998, the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions for online service
providers have been a cornerstone of the U.S. Internet and technology industry’s growth and
success. While we work together to find additional ways to target foreign "rogue" sites, we should not
jeopardize a foundational structure that has worked for content owners and Internet companies alike
and provides certainty to innovators with new ideas for how people create, find, discuss, and share
information lawfully online.

We are proud to be part of an industry that has been crucial to U.S. economic growth and job
creation. A recent McKinsey Global Institute report found that the Internet accounts for 3.4 percent of
GDP in the 13 countries that McKinsey studied, and, in the U.S., the Internet’s contribution to GDP is
even larger. If Internet consumption and expenditure were a sector, its contribution to GDP would be
greater than energy, agriculture, communication, mining, or utilities. In addition, the Internet industry
has increased productivity for small and medium-sized businesses by 10%. We urge you not to risk
either this success or the tremendous benifits the Internet has brought to hundreds of millions of
Americans and people around the world.

We stand ready to work with the Congress to develop targeted solutions to address the problem of
foreign “rogue” websites.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

AOL Inc.
eBay Inc.
Facebook Inc.
Google Inc.
LinkedIn Corporation
Mozilla Corp.
Twitter, Inc.
Yahoo! Inc.
Zynga Game Network
------------------------------------------------------------------

We knew it was coming....


I think they are attempting to start another brand of unnecessary war.
I think they should stop and think about who its affecting.
I think they are finally going too far...
I think they might be biting off more than they can chew...


Looking forward to seeing them choke.

reply to post by Maxmars


well this is 1 way 2 go about it i suppose

Here's another one worth noting....

RIAA Boss Tries To Defend SOPA & PIPA To The NY Times

Similarly, if companies serving pirate sites choose not to take action voluntarily, copyright owners must state their case and persuade a federal judge to issue a court order before payment processors or ad networks can be compelled to stop servicing the site.

Notice the big "if" that Sherman tries to brush pass quickly here. In Section 103 of SOPA, the law says that companies "shall" take action, meaning they don't really have the option of "not" taking action. In fact, under section 103, not taking action can be seen as evidence of being dedicated to theft of US property -- so it's pretty unlikely that the won't choose to take action. And that's a pretty big concern, because all of the incentives are for companies to pre-emptively take action to censor to avoid the risk of the RIAA dragging them to court. Gee, I wonder why Sherman rushed through that point by hiding it all behind a single "if."

Amazing..... despite industry profits being up over the last decade the RIAA insists on maintaining the illusion that there issue is one of 'national economic importance."

There may be different ways to craft a sensible bill, and we’re all for finding the best way, but one thing is clear: the status quo isn’t working. These illicit sites are among the culprits behind the music industry’s more than 50 percent decline in revenues during the last decade, resulting in 15,000 layoffs and fewer resources to invest in new bands.

Notice the timely reference to 'layoffs' which most of us know are not about losses due to piracy, but because the industry wants their out-dated and ineffectual business model to actually be the "status quo."

Let's take a time out and find out what this bill is truly about.

1. It's aim is to stop online piracy - theft of original works.

.
2. Who does this bill defends?

Mainly the music, film, arts including books industry.

.
3. Who is responsible to stop online piracy?

Internet service providers, and popular search sites.

Solutions:-
Information such as the arts which are easily avaliable on the net MUST be shared inorder that more be aware of its existence and it may enlightens one's life. If our ancestor had copyrighted their works, we this generation would not have progressed to this advanced stage today, for majority of our forefathers were either slaves or serfs, with no access to even education nor funds for it.

It is true that one should earn money for one's hardwork, but in the end - its a matter of how much. Should we let unbridled greed get in the way to obscene profits, more money than we can ever spend in 3 lifetimes, or a more conscionable approach to rewards through mass circulation, with cheaper rates, followed by a shorter period for copyright tenure so that even the poor can apreciates and afford such works as our ancestors had done ?

For example, one can notice that good films generally recoups its cost easily within one month upon opening and even profits massively. Perhaps film copyright should end within 2 months time, with the production crew accepting whatever it earned as its entitled profits there and then, rather than to greedily hope for more money through DVD sales, internet video sales sites, etc.

This way, the film earned its revenues, expands its influence and drive to create better future films and earn more money, and those audiences that may not have enough funds to spare, will not be left behind, by watching it online later, less the cinematic experience.

Some may claim that movie goers will then just wait for the copyright period to be up to watch it for free. While true, but nothing beats the cinematic experience and thrill of being the first few to watch a good movie. Thus the onus is on movie producers and marketeers to intelligently market their films to the tune of audiences, as capitalism dictates, so as to be winner in that industry.

It's only a matter of biz modelling, and needs not brutal neantherdal sledgehammer approach to protect artistic rights which may in the end muzzle free expression and individual rights when such internet laws are allowed to pass.

Today, if we can force free enterprises to BAN pirate sites, tomorrow, we will be able ban opposition views as a precedent had been set, and in the near future, let's just ban the entire internet and regress back to charcoal and caves to communitcate or express ourselves.

As far as I know you can block a site in 3 ways. You can physically confiscate a server (useless if it is abroad), you can remove its DNS records (not much help with things like OpenDNS) or you can add a firewall rule (useless if you use a private proxy/vpn type obfuscation).

If they should think up a new way to do it, I just hope and hope that some clever programmer out there invents the next version of Internet that cannot be screwed with. Perhaps a whole bunch of private, secured intranets might be an option but I am not that clever. Someone will surely think of something.

*crosses fingers*

ETA They tried making the ISP's legally responsible for all content years ago. It is a physically impossible task and it failed miserably, rightly so. A provider should provide, nothing more. imho

It'll be interesting to see how this goes down.
The feds do not have access to the best and brightest in the IT field.
The Feds cannot afford them. Not even close.
This is a war the Feds cannot win, and they are too arrogant and sheltered to realize it.

Those good folks work in the private sector, and I am very good friends with several forensic techs that shake their heads at this.
It's an exercise in futility.
While it would affect some large websites, actually enforcing this bill on users is rediculous.
It's a power play. plain and simple.
Let your congressman know this is unacceptable.

and for god's sake VOTE these idiots out of office!!!!