5 ms·

If the law passes, Wikipedia will die. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

by BiosElement 15y ago

twelvechairs 15y ago
or living outside the USA?
- scythe 15y ago
  It's hosted in Florida. Sure, it could theoretically move -- but that would be even more disruptive than blanking the site for a month.
cjfont 15y ago
Perhaps I'm simply out of the loop, but could someone please explain to me why SOPA is such a huge threat to Wikipedia? As far as I know they do a fairly good job at keeping copyrighted material off, is there something else I'm missing aside from pure speculation?
- scythe 15y ago
  SOPA doesn't really care about that, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA#Bill_targets_more_than_infringing_website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA#Bill_targets_more_than_inf... Wikipedia links to The Pirate Bay. Furthermore, it would be absurd for Wikipedia not to link to The Pirate Bay.
  - cjfont 15y ago
    Regardless, who do you know that would fit the profile of someone willing to go after Wikipedia because of it? They would look like an asshole and throw away their political career, if they have one.
    - gbhn 15y ago
      Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly the enforcement reality in the United States -- the law at this level is used selectively as an intimidation weapon rather than being applied uniformly. Examples abound: which "leakers" are prosecuted? The ones "leaking" secret government data which the government wants you to know (i.e. how Iran is supposedly in dealings with Somalia), or the ones leaking government data which it doesn't want you to know (i.e. Bradley Manning)? When the law is so broad that everyone's a criminal, and enforcement is capricious and politically motivated, we are at a low point in the tradition of a just society governed by the rule of law.
    - reissbaker 15y ago
      No politician would have to, if the bill passed. The RIAA would do it for them, and Wikipedia's only resort would be to take it to court -- where it would, after spending buckets of money, lose. Or more accurately, Wikipedia wouldn't take it to court: they'd censor themselves instead, so that they could stay on the internet. Which makes SOPA an existential threat to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge.
- morganw 15y ago
  SOPA removes the DMCA's safe harbor provision. Presently a publisher is immune to infringement liability by responding to takedown notices. Wikipedia publishes plenty of copyrightable text and photos and also what could be construed as circumvention devices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
gojomo 15y ago
That's alarmist hyperbole. Even if the worst form of SOPA passes... • it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear • the law could be struck down by the courts on 1st amendment grounds, or modified/repealed before any application to Wikipedia • Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction • etc., etc., etc. SOPA is bad, and should be voted down, and failing that should be struck down by the courts. There's lots of equally bad legislation in the USA and elsewhere, every year. The principle of neutrality lets Wikipedia keep doing its main job, year-in and year-out, without constant 'interrupts' generated by the ephemera of silly politics.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "• Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction" Small comfort to any of the American contributors and users.
- nostrademons 15y ago
  "it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear" The threat of use is often significantly worse than the use itself. Realistically, big sites like, say, Google are not going to get shut down for a violation of a silly Internet law; the backlash is too big. That doesn't stop Google from being one of the most zealous enforcers of legislation like COPPA or DMCA, because the cost of a lawsuit, when you have gigantic pockets that can be raided, is simply too large a risk for them to take. Same with SOPA. No big company will ever be sued under SOPA. They simply won't provide platforms for user-generated content, and then the Internet as we know it ceases to exist. (Same with startups: would you start a company to fill that void if you knew that the first thing that'd happen if you became popular was that you'd be sued for a potentially dream-ending sum of money?)
  - gojomo 15y ago
    I agree completely and such chilling effects are more reasons why SOPA is bad for the web. But I was only listing why it's not, realistically, an existential threat for Wikipedia.

If the law passes, Wikipedia will die. It's as simple as that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

twelvechairs 15y ago

or living outside the USA?

scythe 15y ago
It's hosted in Florida. Sure, it could theoretically move -- but that would be even more disruptive than blanking the site for a month.

cjfont 15y ago

Perhaps I'm simply out of the loop, but could someone please explain to me why SOPA is such a huge threat to Wikipedia? As far as I know they do a fairly good job at keeping copyrighted material off, is there something else I'm missing aside from pure speculation?

scythe 15y ago
SOPA doesn't really care about that, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA#Bill_targets_more_than_infringing_website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOPA#Bill_targets_more_than_inf... Wikipedia links to The Pirate Bay. Furthermore, it would be absurd for Wikipedia not to link to The Pirate Bay.
- cjfont 15y ago
  Regardless, who do you know that would fit the profile of someone willing to go after Wikipedia because of it? They would look like an asshole and throw away their political career, if they have one.
  - gbhn 15y ago
    Unfortunately, this is becoming increasingly the enforcement reality in the United States -- the law at this level is used selectively as an intimidation weapon rather than being applied uniformly. Examples abound: which "leakers" are prosecuted? The ones "leaking" secret government data which the government wants you to know (i.e. how Iran is supposedly in dealings with Somalia), or the ones leaking government data which it doesn't want you to know (i.e. Bradley Manning)? When the law is so broad that everyone's a criminal, and enforcement is capricious and politically motivated, we are at a low point in the tradition of a just society governed by the rule of law.
  - reissbaker 15y ago
    No politician would have to, if the bill passed. The RIAA would do it for them, and Wikipedia's only resort would be to take it to court -- where it would, after spending buckets of money, lose. Or more accurately, Wikipedia wouldn't take it to court: they'd censor themselves instead, so that they could stay on the internet. Which makes SOPA an existential threat to Wikipedia as a source of knowledge.
morganw 15y ago
SOPA removes the DMCA's safe harbor provision. Presently a publisher is immune to infringement liability by responding to takedown notices. Wikipedia publishes plenty of copyrightable text and photos and also what could be construed as circumvention devices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy

gojomo 15y ago

That's alarmist hyperbole. Even if the worst form of SOPA passes... • it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear • the law could be struck down by the courts on 1st amendment grounds, or modified/repealed before any application to Wikipedia • Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction • etc., etc., etc. SOPA is bad, and should be voted down, and failing that should be struck down by the courts. There's lots of equally bad legislation in the USA and elsewhere, every year. The principle of neutrality lets Wikipedia keep doing its main job, year-in and year-out, without constant 'interrupts' generated by the ephemera of silly politics.

burgerbrain 15y ago
"• Wikipedia could move to another jurisdiction" Small comfort to any of the American contributors and users.
nostrademons 15y ago
"it's unlikely that it would be used against Wikipedia for fear of backlash – smaller sites have much more to fear" The threat of use is often significantly worse than the use itself. Realistically, big sites like, say, Google are not going to get shut down for a violation of a silly Internet law; the backlash is too big. That doesn't stop Google from being one of the most zealous enforcers of legislation like COPPA or DMCA, because the cost of a lawsuit, when you have gigantic pockets that can be raided, is simply too large a risk for them to take. Same with SOPA. No big company will ever be sued under SOPA. They simply won't provide platforms for user-generated content, and then the Internet as we know it ceases to exist. (Same with startups: would you start a company to fill that void if you knew that the first thing that'd happen if you became popular was that you'd be sued for a potentially dream-ending sum of money?)
- gojomo 15y ago
  I agree completely and such chilling effects are more reasons why SOPA is bad for the web. But I was only listing why it's not, realistically, an existential threat for Wikipedia.