Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 188

Thread: Wikipedia blackout

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    6,719
    SMBC has a protest post today, complete with links about the bills--links to Wikipedia, which are of course blacked out! I'll have to try turning off javascript or stopping the page from loading. Some of my other favorites including XKCD and CakeWrecks are also protesting. I'm getting withdrawl already and it's only 7:23 AM!

    These bills are, of course, coming from the same industries that tried to outlaw VCR's, DAT's, and MP3 players.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    These bills are, of course, coming from the same industries that tried to outlaw VCR's, DAT's, and MP3 players.
    Let's hope it goes the same way. It can be used as a precedence.

    BTW: not that it helps (because it's hard to read), the wiki page is still in the view->source. So; It's not removing the page(by redirect or something), just covering it up.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I'm on my iPhone and the mobile version doesn't seem to be blocked--maybe because of flashless--but that means a huge demographic won't even notice.
    On the page discussing the blackout, they specifically mentioned that the mobile versions were not affected by design. They also mentioned that they don't have a problem with people using that or any other workarounds; their point is to try to get their message across, not completely prevent access to the site.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,433
    With VCRs and Cassettes (remember those old reel to reel jobbers?), there was a distinction between copying for personal use and copying for distribution. Even if you let other people watch your copies, the property still remained in your possession. With the advent of digital media, that distinction has blurred severely, since copies on your computer hard drive are easily set to share across P2P services and anything you link on your social media pages is automatically set to distribute when you have your settings allow others to see them.

    The early stuff was an annoyance, but the new methods of sharing have not only put the nail in the industry's coffin, it has dug the hole and said a prayer in it's memory.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    I suppose this would be a copyright violation...
    Where is that image from, anyway? Been wondering about that for a while now.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    Where is that image from, anyway? Been wondering about that for a while now.
    Invasion of the body snatchers, 1978 movie (remake of a '50s original)

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    Where is that image from, anyway? Been wondering about that for a while now.
    Second version of the Invasion of the body snatchers.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    The early stuff was an annoyance, but the new methods of sharing have not only put the nail in the industry's coffin, it has dug the hole and said a prayer in it's memory.
    The early analog stuff also had the advantage (to the industry) that the quality degraded on each copy. (at least for most of the consumer devices)

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    The early analog stuff also had the advantage (to the industry) that the quality degraded on each copy. (at least for most of the consumer devices)
    That's why the industry got so upset when DAT's and MP3's appeared.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,017
    Quote Originally Posted by jokergirl View Post
    The funny thing is that the White House blog itself allows comments and would therefore be vulnerable under said bill. I wonder if someone already has a blanket strike of lawsuits lined up for when the bill goes online... and how fast they'd backpedal then.
    The FUNNY thing is (and I'm not naming names to avoid politics of it) but one of the bill's major sponsors was using a copyrighted image without the owner's permission on their government website. It's since been corrected, of course.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,017
    Quote Originally Posted by publius View Post
    The MPAA responds to the blackout:

    http://mpaa.org/resources/c4c3712a-7...527d5dfad8.pdf

    Try not to let your head explode reading that. They're just trying to protect jobs from foreign criminals. Note the "abuse of power" threat. The opponents are abusing their freedoms to incite their users for their own corporate interests. Pot meet kettle.

    It's really simple. Why do the MPAA and RIAA have so much power? Because they have so much money. And why do they have so much money? Because we buy their crap. All we'd have to do is just stop buying their crap for just a little while and that would be the end of them. Me, I haven't bought their crap in years.
    As I said on Twitter after the MPAA released that joke of a statement: I'm officially protesting motion pictures. The only problem is, I don't like movies much to begin with, so it's not really a change in anything I do. *shrug*

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,468
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Second version of the Invasion of the body snatchers.
    Huh. No wonder I couldn't find it. I kept thinking "It's clearly not Python, but it has all the hallmarks of physical British comedy."

    Thanks.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    The FUNNY thing is (and I'm not naming names to avoid politics of it) but one of the bill's major sponsors was using a copyrighted image without the owner's permission on their government website. It's since been corrected, of course.
    The really funny thing could be the following. Check the fine print -- they may have a clause in there exempting themselves from the legislation, as they often do, such as with insider trading laws that made the news a while back.

    This protest may be having some effect, and as a prominent sponsor on the Senate side just withdrew his support for PIPA. Last I read, the leadership was still moving for a floor vote on PIPA. On the House side, it's sort of confusing. A member of the leadership said something that would seem to indicate they weren't going to bring it to the floor, yet the main sponsor in committee said he was going to press ahead.

    What I'm afraid will happen is they'll supposedly remove the objectionable parts from both bills, then sneak 'em back in in the conference committee. Or sneak them in as riders on other big bills.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    To sum up the linked op-ed piece, based on a line by line analysis of the legalese in the bill, SOPA essentially criminalizes not only copyright infringement, but the potential of a site for copyright infringement; further, if you have a comments box or a wiki or a chat board, you as the site's owner would be held legally responsible for what anyone puts on your site.

    The open-ended wording of the bill itself reads like an open licence to abuse power.

    ETA: Link to the bill; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
    So lets say you have a website that goes through some points of a crank theory and you use quote their websites and use wikipedia to back up your claims you be royally fraked right.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    8,977
    Apparently Wikipedia has become to me what a light switch is: Even if there's no electricity, you automatically flip the switch on.

    I knew it'd be blacked out today, yet forgot and tried twice anyway. Lol!!

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by publius View Post
    The really funny thing could be the following. Check the fine print -- they may have a clause in there exempting themselves from the legislation, as they often do, such as with insider trading laws that made the news a while back.

    This protest may be having some effect, and as a prominent sponsor on the Senate side just withdrew his support for PIPA. Last I read, the leadership was still moving for a floor vote on PIPA. On the House side, it's sort of confusing. A member of the leadership said something that would seem to indicate they weren't going to bring it to the floor, yet the main sponsor in committee said he was going to press ahead.

    What I'm afraid will happen is they'll supposedly remove the objectionable parts from both bills, then sneak 'em back in in the conference committee. Or sneak them in as riders on other big bills.
    So basically trying to eat their cake and it too or business as usual.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,017
    Quote Originally Posted by publius View Post
    What I'm afraid will happen is they'll supposedly remove the objectionable parts from both bills, then sneak 'em back in in the conference committee. Or sneak them in as riders on other big bills.
    That's exactly what I'm afraid of. Seems like they were counting on getting this pushed through silently, and now that it has caught the interwebs' attention that won't happen. For now. Seems like they're trying to back it up, wait for attention to dwindle, then try again.

    And they also seem to be counting on the confusion to help. After the White House's comments on SOPA on (Saturday?) a lot of places began reporting the bill was officially dead. Far from it (the statement itself didn't say the pres would kill it, just that they understand reservations over it.) And the response wasn't "We give up" or even "We'll take these parts out", it was "We'll take these parts out for now, with a clause that says they can be put in place once the bill is passed."

    Without commenting on anyone specific, I'll just say that as a consumer, I'm always suspicious when someone says "Okay, we won't charge you for this service when you sign up. But we reserve the right to charge you for this service at our discretion once you've been locked in by contract."

    Always sets the "Hmm, there's probably not something good here" flags flying.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,017
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOncomingStorm View Post
    So lets say you have a website that goes through some points of a crank theory and you use quote their websites and use wikipedia to back up your claims you be royally fraked right.
    The example I use is my own website. We have pictures from video games included in our articles. I've become very strict about ONLY using screen shots and art that has been expressly released for the purpose of press using them in their publications. Still, the assets aren't given directly to me (rather, typically through press releases or press services.)

    Say I give a game a poor review and it upsets the company that made the game. Theoretically, they could claim copyright infringement against my site for the use of any of their assets from any of their games, and before I could even make an argument on my behalf, my website would get blacklisted off of US domain servers (meaning the average person couldn't access it.) I'd be cut off from my viewership without first getting to defend myself. It'd only be *after* I settle through courts that I'd even have a chance at being reinstated. That could take years, and by then, I'd have lost any customers I had.

    It leaves the door open for vindictive and abusive claims that could be potentially ruinous for thousands upon thousands of websites. When I went to my congressman (who supports PIPA) with my concerns, I was basically told "Yes, but that's not what the bill is meant for."

    The people that seem to be pushing it through seem to understand the potential for abuse, but are deluding themselves by saying "But that won't happen because that's not what we're trying to do."

    If you really think malicious, venomous, fraudulent copyright claims don't happen, you don't use Youtube very often.

    ... and that's just the one side of it. The technological implications for how these laws are supposed to be enacted also cause massive problems for internet infrastructure as a whole. The scary thing is, ultimately the decision is going to be made by people who have absolutely no understanding of how any of this works.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post

    If you really think malicious, venomous, fraudulent copyright claims don't happen, you don't use Youtube very often.

    ... and that's just the one side of it. The technological implications for how these laws are supposed to be enacted also cause massive problems for internet infrastructure as a whole. The scary thing is, ultimately the decision is going to be made by people who have absolutely no understanding of how any of this works.
    I know of at least couple times where videos have been pulled from youtube because someones nmae was mentioned in not a positive way. Until recently I listened to a few twit.tv podcasts and they are always joking they are going to get their youtube videos pulled because they criticize on show or another and network coming in and complaining about it. I don't know the real history. I know if this is passed it will a lot harder for people to post things and be critical about it because they have to worry about someone who is going to sue them.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.

  20. #80
    The way I see it is that the big media companies are losing control of how their products and information about their products is being released. The artist and companies do need to be paid fo their work but people should fell free to use the product freely.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,017
    That's the thing - Some on the SOPA movement have been claiming that you can't possibly oppose the bill unless you support piracy. That's simply not true. I couldn't have a blog about video games if the video games industry went out of business. Piracy threatens to drive smaller studios out of business. That threatens what *I* enjoy doing. I'm very much against piracy. But that doesn't mean I think we should sacrifice freedom or due process in order to fight it.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,715
    At the moment Wiki and BAUT both do this ignorant stunt, and it is irritating. I will gladly sign the petition as soon as the sites are operating as normal. Until then, forget it.

    Good luck, JOhn M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  23. #83
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    At the moment Wiki and BAUT both do this ignorant stunt, and it is irritating.
    Why is it "ignorant"? They are aware of what's going on and have an opinion. What don't they know.
    Irritating? sure. And there's probably a lot of other words that I can disagree with you and still accept that it's your opinion. But, not "ignorant".

    And what stunt is BAUT up to? We are just discussing the situation. Did I miss something? or are you referring to UT?

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    That's the thing - Some on the SOPA movement have been claiming that you can't possibly oppose the bill unless you support piracy.
    That's a well-worn, tried and true legislative tactic. You give something a warm and fuzzy, sweetness and light sounding name and then accuse opponents of being against the sweetness and light. Call something the "Protect the Children Act" and, even if said bill had a provision to sell children into slavery, accuse opponents of being against "The Children" (tm).

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,468
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    At the moment Wiki and BAUT both do this ignorant stunt, and it is irritating. I will gladly sign the petition as soon as the sites are operating as normal. Until then, forget it.
    I have to ditto the question. What stunt, exactly, do you think we're doing?

  26. #86
    BAUT is blacked out or do mean Phils big black square on his blog.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    10,959
    I was just thinking... my bank has a section that allows me to send communications to them. I wonder if I sent a link along if it would then qualify for action under SOPA/PIPA, or maybe all it requires is that I use my bank to transfer funds to others for a pirated copy of something or to support a "piracy" operation.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    I was just thinking... my bank has a section that allows me to send communications to them. I wonder if I sent a link along if it would then qualify for action under SOPA/PIPA, or maybe all it requires is that I use my bank to transfer funds to others for a pirated copy of something or to support a "piracy" operation.
    Again, when I raised this point with my congressman, I got "That'd get thrown out of court because that's not what the intent of the bill is." And it probably *would* get thrown out, after a lengthy trail/retrial period. In the mean time, the accused is branded as a violator and action is taken against them. It's the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.

    Best explanation I've seen so far is here (it's a video): http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_..._bad_idea.html

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,068
    You've heard back from your Congressman? My Representative didn't write back--well, I didn't expect her to. I couldn't even get onto the website of one of my senators last night, though; her server seemed to be overloaded. But I've exchanged e-mail with the other one once before, and she has not yet written me back. Of course, if she's in-state, it's still early in the day for her. If she's on the other coast . . . well, I expect Western Washington is complaining in force on this one. After all, one of our largest industries means that we have a few people around who know a bit about computers and care just a hint.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  30. #90
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    Again, when I raised this point with my congressman, I got "That'd get thrown out of court because that's not what the intent of the bill is.
    I'm not sure that would even apply in the wording of the bill. Your email has nothing to do with the content or service the bank is providing.
    Now; your internet provider? That would be another situation.

    Wouldn't it be ironic for the government to shut down time warner cable because they provide a means for people to forward copyrighted information?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    the accused is branded as a violator and action is taken against them. It's the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.
    Yep, that happens all the time anyway. I know of a very reputable company that finally shut it's doors because they got tired of fighting lawsuits. They never lost one or settled out of court either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    Best explanation I've seen so far is here (it's a video): http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_..._bad_idea.html
    Yes, that was a very good talk.
    Interesting story about the bakery.

Similar Threads

  1. Do u blackout??
    By 3dknight in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 2008-May-13, 09:06 PM
  2. Northeast Blackout Seen From Space
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-07, 12:35 PM
  3. Black out blackout at Pentagon
    By kucharek in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2005-May-02, 08:07 AM
  4. Blackout astronomy
    By banquo's_bumble_puppy in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2003-Aug-21, 12:54 AM
  5. Blackout... Positive?!
    By jarany in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2003-Aug-20, 01:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: