Aint No Right

In Protest Of Anti-Piracy Bill, Wikipedia To Go Dark
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

January 16, 2012
Wikipedia will black out the English language version of its website Wednesday to protest anti-piracy legislation under consideration in Congress, the foundation behind the popular community-based online encyclopedia said in a statement Monday night.

The website will go dark for 24 hours in an unprecedented move that brings added muscle to a growing base of critics of the legislation. Wikipedia is considered one of the Internet's most popular websites, with millions of visitors daily.

"If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States," the Wikimedia foundation said.

The Stop Online Piracy Act in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Protect Intellectual Property Act under consideration in the Senate are designed to crack down on sales of pirated U.S. products overseas.

Supporters include the film and music industry, which often sees its products sold illegally. They say the legislation is needed to protect intellectual property and jobs.

Critics say the legislation could hurt the technology industry and infringe on free-speech rights. Among their concerns are provisions that would weaken cyber-security for companies and hinder domain access rights.

The most controversial provision is in the House bill, which would have enabled federal authorities to "blacklist" sites that are alleged to distribute pirated content. That would essentially cut off portions of the Internet to all U.S. users. But congressional leaders appear to be backing off this provision.

Tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, eBay, AOL and others have spoken out against the legislation and said it threatens the industry's livelihood. Several online communities such as Reddit, Boing Boing and others have announced plans to go dark in protest as well.

The Obama administration also raised concerns about the legislation over the weekend and said it will work with Congress on legislation to help battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy, security and innovation in the Internet.

Wikipedia's decision to go dark brings the issue into a much brighter spotlight. A group of Wikipedia users have discussed for more than a month whether it should react to the legislation.

Over the past few days, a group of more than 1,800 volunteers who work on the site and other users considered several forms of online protest, including banner ads and a global blackout of the site, the foundation said. Ultimately, the group supported the decision to black out the English version of the site.

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia who first announced the move on his Twitter account Monday, said the bills are a threat to the free, open, and secure web.

"The whole thing is just a poorly designed mess," Wales said in an email to The Associated Press.

Wikipedia is also requesting that readers contact members of Congress about the bill during the blackout.

"I am personally asking everyone who cares about freedom and openness on the Internet to contact their Senators and Representative," Wales said. "One of the things we have learned recently during the Arab Spring events is that the Internet is a powerfully effective tool for the public to organize and have their voices heard."

Wikipedia will shut down access from midnight Eastern Standard Time (0500 GMT) on Tuesday night until midnight Wednesday.

This is the first time Wikipedia's English version has gone dark. Its Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government; the bill did not advance.

"Wikipedia is about being open," said Jay Walsh, spokesman for the Wikimedia foundation. "We are not about shutting down and protesting. It's not a muscle that is normally flexed."

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

hokahey wrote:https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

It's funny how many liberals are againt this bill supporting regulation of the internet. Google labels their page about it "End Piracy, Not Liberty," and adds:

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

I understand that business regulations vary by industry etc. but it's funny seeing groups that strongly support government intervention so bent out of shape about this.

To me it shows that people are rarely consistent in their ideaologies.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

hokahey wrote:https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

It's funny how many liberals are againt this bill supporting regulation of the internet. Google labels their page about it "End Piracy, Not Liberty," and adds:

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

I understand that business regulations vary by industry etc. but it's funny seeing groups that strongly support government intervention so bent out of shape about this.

To me it shows that people are rarely consistent in their ideaologies.

That isn't what it shows at all. There's nothing inconsistent about supporting some regulations and not others. You even tacitly admit this when you say that you understand that regulations vary. No democrat or socialist in their right mind would assert that government regulation is a good in itself, regardless of the content. That doesn't even make sense.

hokahey wrote: RAAAAAAAWR RON PAUL PIG FARMERS AWHHAHSFHAFHSSOFKHO less regulation = more moneys!!!!1

Pure Method wrote:

hokahey wrote: RAAAAAAAWR RON PAUL PIG FARMERS AWHHAHSFHAFHSSOFKHO less regulation = more moneys!!!!1

turn a profit while harming no one.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

turn a profit while harming no one.

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/pr ... tml#impact

hokahey wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

That's good stuff.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

Pure Method wrote:Hoka, you're a good sport.

sinep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

i always wondered who what type of person would be sad and lonely enough to spend time writing a wikipedia article.

sinep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

i always wondered who what type of person would be sad and lonely enough to spend time writing a wikipedia article.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

sinep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

i always wondered who what type of person would be sad and lonely enough to spend time writing a wikipedia article.

The kind who is an expert in an area that has a shitty article on Wikipedia, and who also thought it would be funny if his students copied and pasted his words in their essays without knowing it, and they did, so it was worth it.

creep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

sinep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

i always wondered who what type of person would be sad and lonely enough to spend time writing a wikipedia article.

The kind who is an expert in an area that has a shitty article on Wikipedia, and who also thought it would be funny if his students copied and pasted his words in their essays without knowing it, and they did, so it was worth it.

i must admit...i may have done dome plagiarizing in college. this was before google searches so i could get away with it.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

creep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

sinep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

i always wondered who what type of person would be sad and lonely enough to spend time writing a wikipedia article.

The kind who is an expert in an area that has a shitty article on Wikipedia, and who also thought it would be funny if his students copied and pasted his words in their essays without knowing it, and they did, so it was worth it.

i must admit...i may have done dome plagiarizing in college. this was before google searches so i could get away with it.

You may have had shitty TAs or profs who didn't give a shit, too. It's painfully easy to tell when writing is above a student's level. Out of 100 students we had 4 or 5 really obvious cases. The tricky cases are the ones where they pay someone to write the paper for them.

creep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

creep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

sinep wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:A student plagiarized me this year because I wrote the wikipedia article on the thing she was supposed to write a paper on. It was hilarious and sad.

i always wondered who what type of person would be sad and lonely enough to spend time writing a wikipedia article.

The kind who is an expert in an area that has a shitty article on Wikipedia, and who also thought it would be funny if his students copied and pasted his words in their essays without knowing it, and they did, so it was worth it.

i must admit...i may have done dome plagiarizing in college. this was before google searches so i could get away with it.

You may have had shitty TAs or profs who didn't give a shit, too. It's painfully easy to tell when writing is above a student's level. Out of 100 students we had 4 or 5 really obvious cases. The tricky cases are the ones where they pay someone to write the paper for them.

as an econ major most of my papers were filled with facts and data and shit like that. you could easily lift a few sentences. there wasn't much creative writing involved.