SOPA Blackout Protest

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

What tip is that?

From a few posts up:

Originally Posted by sun surfer

you know you can still use the English wikipedia site. When it loads, it shows the normal page for a half-second before the blackout page. All you have to do is press Escape or Stop before it goes to the blackout page and you will have normal wikipedia. You have to do this for every single page, though.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I said before, though, the UK already blocks dodgy internet sites, so this is perhaps not seen as such a big deal here.

The problem goes beyond just dodgy sites though. SOPA/PIPA have no due course though. In the UK, it probably takes a court order to block sites, where as under SOPA/PIPA, it would not. It would get taken down, and then after its down, the blamed would have to prove they're not at fault. Kinda goes against the whole innocent until proven guilty thing the US is so proud of. Not only that, but the blocks happen at the DNS level, and how most DNS systems are, a block could easily propagate to countries out side of the US. How would you like it if a website got blocked by the US, but you in the UK couldn't see it now either?

I mean, what made people so upset about the DMCA is the ability for anyone to send takedown notices, and the hosts had to comply or be taken to court, and how ripe for abuse it could be. It has been abused many times, but with the limited scope, it wasn't able to have a big impact. Where as SOPA/PIPA, same ability for abuse is there, but things happen much quicker (site has to be blocked within 5 days), and consequences are more severe for the parties involved (except the ones who make a false claim. PIPA does nothing what so ever to people who make a false claim, and SOPA it is just a slap on the wrist.

[JoeD]

We're talking about piracy sites though, ISP's require a court order before they'll block access. Which means there's a degree of thought that's gone into determining whether the site is really infringing the countries copyright laws or not.

I really believe courts should be the ones who make the choice over whether a site is blocked for infringing copyright. There's an argument for once a block has occurred to allow ISPs a little wiggle room or expedited procedures to keep the blocks up to date as the site will likely re-open on a new domain etc

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I mean, what made people so upset about the DMCA is the ability for anyone to send takedown notices, and the hosts had to comply or be taken to court, and how ripe for abuse it could be. It has been abused many times, but with the limited scope, it wasn't able to have a big impact.

DMCA also has provisions which protect the operators of sites (such as MR) that allow user generated content. Under SOPA it sounds like they wouldn't have such protection and if true, I'd expect many legal and useful sites we all use today would have ever been created had SOPA been in place at the time.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I really believe courts should be the ones who make the choice over whether a site is blocked for infringing copyright.

It should certainly be a judicial process at which the site involved has a right to defend itself, I agree.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

From a few posts up:

Thanks. That's a pain. If you aren't quick enough, you have to do it again. I'd rather search the cached results. They're only 12 hours behind at the moment.

[anamardoll]

Wiki doesn't seem to be down on my end. How odd.

I support the protest, though. Wrote my senators and representative this morning via their webforms.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Wiki doesn't seem to be down on my end. How odd.

Forgive the question, but have you tried to view a Wiki page? It's not the front page that's blocked.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Forgive the question, but have you tried to view a Wiki page? It's not the front page that's blocked.

Because they are still keeping the access for the other languages.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Wiki doesn't seem to be down on my end. How odd.

I support the protest, though. Wrote my senators and representative this morning via their webforms.

Do you have javascript blocked?

[CWatkinsNash]

The blackouts (and semi-blackouts) have definitely increased the local news coverage. The midday news on our NBC affiliate featured a clip of Jimmy Wales explaining his opposition but only second-hand quoted the bills proponents. Don't know if that's bias or lack of video clips available, but in this case I'm cool with it.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Do you have javascript blocked?

I'm at work, so this seems very likely. Thank you.

(And, yes, the regular entry pages are coming through loud and clear on both IE and Firefox.)

Interesting roll call here:

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/pipa#roll_call

EDIT: Update to add that it's now redirecting. Wasn't at our place of business about an hour ago (I checked with others). So yay!

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

The problem goes beyond just dodgy sites though. SOPA/PIPA have no due course though. In the UK, it probably takes a court order to block sites, where as under SOPA/PIPA, it would not. It would get taken down, and then after its down, the blamed would have to prove they're not at fault. Kinda goes against the whole innocent until proven guilty thing the US is so proud of.

Depending on what the situation is, "innocent until proven guilty" has been dead and buried. The biggie seems to be in rape cases; there's a legal proceeding that can convict any man on the planet of a rape unless he has a 100% airtight alibi, based on the fact that he simply can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wasn't there and didn't participate. I've also seen it happen with sexual harassment cases; as soon as the man demands to face his accuser, the response is usually "We don't want you to try to exact retribution on her for complaining about your misconduct," denying him a chance to prove his innocence.

And then there's the whole impact of media manipulation; for example that girl who recently got acquitted of the murder of her child. It didn't matter whether or not she did it, various personalities convinced the populace that she was guilty and for a while there was a real danger of her getting lynched by an angry mob.

I mean, what made people so upset about the DMCA is the ability for anyone to send takedown notices, and the hosts had to comply or be taken to court, and how ripe for abuse it could be. It has been abused many times, but with the limited scope, it wasn't able to have a big impact. Where as SOPA/PIPA, same ability for abuse is there, but things happen much quicker (site has to be blocked within 5 days), and consequences are more severe for the parties involved (except the ones who make a false claim. PIPA does nothing what so ever to people who make a false claim, and SOPA it is just a slap on the wrist.

Again, standard operating procedure. Anyone ever find themselves maliciously listed in SPEWS and try to look for SPEWS appeal process? Surprised that there is none? I sure was, and I'm not a spammer.

At least with the DMCA you actually have to recieve a takedown notice.

[anamardoll]

@teh603, it would cause a MASSIVE derail to go into details, but speaking as a rape survivor I strenuously disagree with your last post.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by JoeD

We're talking about piracy sites though, ISP's require a court order before they'll block access. Which means there's a degree of thought that's gone into determining whether the site is really infringing the countries copyright laws or not.

I really believe courts should be the ones who make the choice over whether a site is blocked for infringing copyright. There's an argument for once a block has occurred to allow ISPs a little wiggle room or expedited procedures to keep the blocks up to date as the site will likely re-open on a new domain etc

As things currently stand, yes, they require court order. Under SOPA/PIPA, that would not be the case.

Originally Posted by JoeD

DMCA also has provisions which protect the operators of sites (such as MR) that allow user generated content. Under SOPA it sounds like they wouldn't have such protection and if true, I'd expect many legal and useful sites we all use today would have ever been created had SOPA been in place at the time.

Yeah, DMCA does have protection for hosts of sites that use user generated content. SOPA/PIPA does not. So, you could be kosher under DMCA, but still have your site taken down with SOPA/PIPA. It can be so far as having a link to another page with the content. So, you have a search engine, and your results contain a listing a page, where some user of the site uploaded something that infringes on copyright. With SOPA/PIPA, that site gets taken down, and your search engine can be taken down as well.