The Wikipedia Blackout

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Here in the USA, there's new legislation pending that has the potential to allow the government to regulate the Internet. In protest, Wikipedia is blacked out, and Google has redacted their logo.

What do you all think of this?

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't know about that tactic to combat this. I don't think the government would care if information stopped flowing on the internet. I think that's what they want. They want us in the dark. They win. I would say that I'll leave if they do this, but then I might be "indefinitely detained".

[Darcy88]

I think its a marvellous protest tactic. The mainstream media, whose parent companies are supporting and lobbying for SOPA, has been almost entirely silent on the matter. A lot of people who were not aware of the proposed legislation which would curtail online freedoms will take note when they attempt to access wikipedia.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've tried accessing Wikipedia twice today. I didn't realize I used it so much.

[Darcy88]

I've tried accessing Wikipedia twice today. I didn't realize I used it so much.

Haha. Me too. Its like I've lost a region of my brain.

[Lokasenna]

I've tried accessing Wikipedia twice today. I didn't realize I used it so much.

Ditto, though it's definitely been more than twice for me...

[MystyrMystyry]

I think it's great they've made a token stand (it's still available on cellphones etc)

But the issue of censoring/blocking sites for the benefit of a few elites and moneyed corporations - big issue. I understand that the film makers want to generate as much profit for their investors as possible, and that it has calculated in future sales of dvd's, film scripts, soundtracks, and royalties for the 'stars' etc - but just how great is the cultural importance of these certain media? It's a big deal at the Oscars for the actors anticipating their nominations and awards - but aren't they just a bunch of loud mouth self-absorbed over-stuffed show offs?

I like a good movie, and appreciate that a certain cost has to be factored in to make it watchable, but any 'art as industry' gives a certain sameness of quality - which is why a good independent/foreign/handheld camera film can be more rewarding than the 'designed to be ablockbuster'.

Too many cooks spoil the broth, so it is said - and who reads the entire credit list anyway? Especially when they're a mile long. Hollywood may make a few good movies amongst the dross, and in that dross there's a ton of tax-break rubbish.

Work on a building site for a day - that's work. And no-one marks their initials into every brick (maybe one or two, but it's neither there nor here).

If Spielberg, Cameron and Lucas don't possess at least a few illegal downloads I'd be surprised, but they'd still be the rare few if not. With tech savvy comes temptation. Trying to control copyright screws far more people than it serves as this bill will prove if it goes though.

And that's just films - music, books, even Wikipaedia - accessible only by an elite? Ridiculous! There's already a digital divide, and this won't address that.


Anyway rant mood over.

[Emil Miller]

I haven't been into Wikipedia today, because they are off line, but I do use it regularly, even though they often have unaccredited sources. In general terms I believe it to be reliable information and it has often matched that which I knew from other sources. I would not recommend Wiki to be the sole source of information as there are usually others that may be more authoritative, but Wikipedia seems more comprehensive than some other sites.

[cl154576]

You can still use Wikipedia if you press the Esc key as soon as you get on the page, before the blackout message loads.

[Delta40]

I read if you disable your javascript you can still access it. As an overseas citizen they're asking me to complain to my local government but what the hell is my local MP going to do? I like wikipedia too. Where's Denny Crane when you need him?

[Emil Miller]

You can still use Wikipedia if you press the Esc key as soon as you get on the page, before the blackout message loads.

Thanks for the info but they are only protesting for one day so I'll wait until they are back on line officially.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, I can live without it for one day, too.

[Delta40]

But what if it is taken offline?

[Alexander III]

I like it, tough only symbolic in nature, it is a strong symbol for people.

[Charles Darnay]

It has gotten news outlets to talk about an issue they have been silent about.

[JuniperWoolf]

But the issue of censoring/blocking sites for the benefit of a few elites and moneyed corporations - big issue.

Hissssss, let them try. Remember the early 90's when they were still trying to regulate the monster that is the internet? Didn't work out too well, did it? For some reason the upper echelon seems to think that we've become so dependant on the affluent amount of legal digital information that's currently available (wiki, youtube, ect) that if they take it away we'll forget how to upload and download illegally like everyone used to have to a couple of decades ago. As if "prohibiting" (read: prohibition) free action which the majority of people choose to engage in hasn't been tried before, and hasn't failed miserably.

[PoeticPassions]

It definitely raised awareness! And I did not realize how much I use Wikipedia until now....

Other great sites were blocked or had redacted material too.. it was a dark day on the Internet yesterday.

I actually think that this type of protest was quite effective in spreading the word, making a symbolic stand, and even getting people to act.

and hey, here is a good sign too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16623831

''Eight US lawmakers have withdrawn their support for anti-piracy laws, after 'blackout' protests on thousands of internet sites.''

[JuniperWoolf]

One of my favorite people wrote an article about keeping up with internet control long-term and the uselessness of ineffectual-yet-popular "awareness" protests that basically involve changing your facebook photo (HATE). It's worth a read, if only for the beautiful and fiery brand of discontent that I love so much. Like wiki and a few other sites, he took down his whole page for a little while and made this the only accesible article:

http://maddox.xmission.com/

[Charles Darnay]

One of my favorite people wrote an article about keeping up with internet control long-term and the uselessness of ineffectual-yet-popular "awareness" protests that basically involve changing your facebook photo (HATE). It's worth a read, if only for the beautiful and fiery brand of discontent that I love so much. Like wiki and a few other sites, he took down his whole page for a little while and made this the only accesible article:

http://maddox.xmission.com/

Certainly a fiery article, and I certainly agree with his point that people's attempt at protest by utilizing Faceboook or blogs accomplish nothing beyond making people feel good. However, I disagree with his assumption that if SOPA passes it will light the necessary fire under people.

SOPA will not have clear immediate effects unless you are 1. directly involved in pirating or 2. are actively looking for its effects. Otherwise, most people will continue on as always and SOPA would just become another piece of legislation that no one thinks about. The problem with this is that what will happen (at a greater rate than it is currently happening) is that the Internet will become as much subject to "big business" as let's say North America currently is.

[JuniperWoolf]

Certainly a fiery article, and I certainly agree with his point that people's attempt at protest by utilizing Faceboook or blogs accomplish nothing beyond making people feel good. However, I disagree with his assumption that if SOPA passes it will light the necessary fire under people.

SOPA will not have clear immediate effects unless you are 1. directly involved in pirating or 2. are actively looking for its effects. Otherwise, most people will continue on as always and SOPA would just become another piece of legislation that no one thinks about. The problem with this is that what will happen (at a greater rate than it is currently happening) is that the Internet will become as much subject to "big business" as let's say North America currently is.

I don't think he meant that, his article titles are always attention-grabbing and his premise is always purposely overstated (eg. "Vegans - for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three").

Censoring information on the internet is something that I really feel strongly about. The best way to ensure that people from all economic backgrounds have a chance to achieve their full potential is to make information easily accessible, the internet has the potential to raise our species out of the mud. Free information means free thought, and that includes information which is free from corporate strangleholds. I think it's a worthy goal, I'd do anything, including risk jail time, to support free digital information (except I've so far only gone as far as to give a little chunk of my paycheques to wiki and write a few heated letters :p Canada has so far been relatively cool when it comes to internet censorship), and I know I'm not alone. If SOPA had been passed, I believe that many Americans would have flipped.

The point he was making is that now many people are going to forget that this fight has been going on for decades and isn't nearly over yet.

[qimissung]

I haven't read the article yet, but I will try to get to it soon.

I did send an email to a representative when I attempted to log onto Wikipedia yesterday (more out of curiosity than anything). I, too, use it almost daily. Emil gave a pretty good summation of it. Schools mostly won't allow students to use Wikipedia as a suorce in a paper, and I agree, but for the average person I have found it very useful and informative.

I do protest the pending bills, although please don't ask me to discuss the particulars or the ramifications. I have read just enough to be dangerous (I kid), but it does sound over-reaching and naturally favors big busiiness at the expense of the average citizen. What else is new? I usually get tired of hearing people ranting about their rights, but in this case we can ill afford to curtail them. I believe that the government is looking for any excuse they can to limit the internet and our usage of it (not that I'm paranoid or anything).

[AuntShecky]

Well, the protest black-out seems to have worked, as an earlier poster pointed out: several legislators have dropped their support for this so-called anti-piracy act.

Wikipedia as a Web entity seems to me earnest in its general earnestness to be a reliable webtool. You can trace its development, or you might say, evolution over the years. In its beginning stages some of the information was specious simply because of the site's free-wheeling nature. In recent years, though, I really think it's beginning to get its act together.

About the issue of attempting to stem anti-piracy: it would be a shame if the egalitarian nature of the Internet should lose its value as an engine for free expression. ( For instance, the so-called "Arab Spring" which, apart from the deplorable violent results, contributed greatly to the rise of true democracy in troubled areas of the world.) On a much less world-shaking note, the freedom of expressing oneself on the Internet gives ordinary people a venue where they can make their unique voices known.

In any kind of Internet "regulation" (that dreaded term!), what would be most desirable is a way of keeping that inherent freedom, allowing access to needed information, without compromising an individual's right to his or her own intellectual property. I'd hate to see us lose all of that just to ensure that big corporations can keep a tight fist on their blockbuster profits.

[tonywalt]

Phew! I can put my set of Britannia Encyclopedias back in the attic...

[MystyrMystyry]

One of the aspects is it will ultimately allow the closure of foreign websites, making the entire internet as shutdown as China.

As it stands now George Lucas, say, has no power to sue any foreign company for copyright infringement on say a knock-off Star Wars toy. This will give his lawyers the ability to force a (say) Norwegian site advertising it off the internet regardless of whatever else the site sells. So it becomes a threat mechanism. The site removes the item, but now it realises it has to obey corporate American policing of the rules. If you want to tell Lucas and his lawyers to **** off then that site can also be closed down.

It now has the potential to become an international attack on free internet speech. Political commentators and comedians alike can be silenced - in fact anything criticising current government policy, a manufacturing defect or a rip off regarding its inbuilt battery, any criticism about anything or anyone anywhere can be silenced.

If Wikipaedia has a factual entry about the bull**** measures then the entire site can be sunk if they refuse to remove it.

As for piracy - and this includes everything from innocently saving a photograph or font, to an album or movie that you wouldn't have otherwise bought in a purple fit anyway - they'll stamp that out, but won't offer anything in its place except more of the same. Lucas may be perfectly happy if no-one watched anything other than Star Wars (and even happier if he works out a way for them to pay for the privilege each time) but in this reality there'll be nothing but what they'll let us see.

Worse case scenario - Warner Brothers may decide that all films and cartoons pre-1980 are no longer in the public domain because they interfere with sales of their latest releases. So where do you turn to if you want to see The Three Little Bops?

Underground. And then who's interests will it have been in? We'll all be classified criminals and regarded as such. They'll misuse their power to track torrents and trace our IP addresses, and punished by being completely kicked off regardless if we're American of not.

[Varenne Rodin]

Sounds unfun. :(

[JuniperWoolf]

Federal agents raided Megaupload today and arrested four people, the day after SOPA failed to pass. They're trying to scare people, it's basically a huge "f*ck you" to everyone who supported the black out and free-information. Fifteen minutes later Anonymous shut down the websites for the Department of Justice, the Universal Music Group, RIAA, the Motion Picture Association of America and just a few hours ago they took down the FBI site (news article here (http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-doj-universal-sopa-235/)). It turns out that people aren't willing to roll over and expose their bellies to puppetmaster lobbyists and politician puppets who don't know IP addresses from their ***holes.

[MystyrMystyry]

I feel a novel coming on - The Internet Wars!


Actually if Hollywood and the music/software industry changed their pricing structure to what the users think their product is worth, none of this would be necessary.

I like Blade Runner and have watched it so many times here's a hundred bucks. I detested 2012 so much you owe me a hundred bucks, and fifty for everything I've suffered through with Bruce Willis in it.

That'd put their egos into perspective and their disproportionate earnings could be used to only make something worth seeing, hearing or using.

[Charles Darnay]

I feel a novel coming on - The Internet Wars!


Actually if Hollywood and the music/software industry changed their pricing structure to what the users think their product is worth, none of this would be necessary.

I like Blade Runner and have watched it so many times here's a hundred bucks. I detested 2012 so much you owe me a hundred bucks, and fifty for everything I've suffered through with Bruce Willis in it.

That'd put their egos into perspective and their disproportionate earnings could be used to only make something worth seeing, hearing or using.


In a way you are very right. Netflix iTunes, and steam have all proved that good business practices can combat piracy.

[PoeticPassions]

In a way you are very right. Netflix iTunes, and steam have all proved that good business practices can combat piracy.

Unfortunately these are only available in the US...

[Charles Darnay]

Unfortunately these are only available in the US...

I'm in Canada and I get all three. And I think Netflix is the only one that I mentioned that is not widespread.

[PoeticPassions]

Ah well Europe doesn't get netflix and I can't purchase anything on itunes either. Haven't used steam though.

[Varenne Rodin]

I feel a novel coming on - The Internet Wars!


Actually if Hollywood and the music/software industry changed their pricing structure to what the users think their product is worth, none of this would be necessary.

I like Blade Runner and have watched it so many times here's a hundred bucks. I detested 2012 so much you owe me a hundred bucks, and fifty for everything I've suffered through with Bruce Willis in it.

That'd put their egos into perspective and their disproportionate earnings could be used to only make something worth seeing, hearing or using.

Everything you said is perfect. I love Blade Runner too.

Jason Statham is the new Bruce Willis. Have you seen the Transporter? Awful horrendous garbage. It's mesmerizing. Hilarious in how over the top ridiculous it is. It makes no sense from start to finish. That guy Bruce Willises it up hard.

[MystyrMystyry]

I have, and you're right. I kept thinking I'd missed something somewhere and only realised after that it was complete toss.

You know what I reckon? A global class action suit over false advertising - see how Hollywood sucks that one up!

[Varenne Rodin]

I have, and you're right. I kept thinking I'd missed something somewhere and only realised after that it was complete toss.

You know what I reckon? A global class action suit over false advertising - see how Hollywood sucks that one up!

I would go for it, but masses of "Twilight" viewers are convinced that they like it. They think they like "The Transporter" and the "Get Smart" reimagining too. The zombie apocalypse is here.

[AuntShecky]

I feel a novel coming on - The Internet Wars!

I like Blade Runner and have watched it so many times here's a hundred bucks. I detested 2012 so much you owe me a hundred bucks, and fifty for everything I've suffered through with Bruce Willis in it.





How much for your sense of humor, MM? Whatever it is, I can't affords it--
'cause it's priceless!

[Calidore]

I would go for it, but masses of "Twilight" viewers are convinced that they like it. They think they like "The Transporter" and the "Get Smart" reimagining too. The zombie apocalypse is here.

Hey, The Transporter was lots of fun.

[Varenne Rodin]

Hey, The Transporter was lots of fun.

Haha. It's ok for you to like it, Cal. I had just never heard of big rig cargo holds referred to as "containers" before and all of the ill fitting accents made my head spin. It was fun like Bruce Willis movies are fun. I really enjoyed "The Fifth Element."

[MystyrMystyry]

I like The Fifth Element, though it would have been better with Cary Grant in the lead.

Do you realise they made a sequel to The Transporter? It's called The Transporter 2. Can't wait to miss that one.

[PoeticPassions]

In defense of Bruce Willis, not all movies he made were bad...
Here are a few that I think were great/good films:
Pulp Fiction
The Sixth Sense
Sin City
Twelve Monkeys

I enjoyed The Fifth Element, and you have to give it up to Bruce for his role in Death Becomes Her and his short guest starring role on Friends :)

Ok that's that... back on topic now I guess...