Wikipedia and piracy
toutbrun
Washington, USAPosts: 1,501MI6 Agent
http://techland.time.com/2012/01/12/sopa-reddit-confirms-january-18-blackout-wikipedia-and-others-may-follow/
Wikipedia, in its English version, will be inaccessible tomorrow for they are protesting a US law against piracy. I hope no one here is in University and has a deadline
Wikipedia, in its English version, will be inaccessible tomorrow for they are protesting a US law against piracy. I hope no one here is in University and has a deadline
If you can't trust a Swiss banker, what's the world come to?
Comments
In university, but I am just fine with it. I totally agree with their stance and hopefully the awareness from the website will generate some people making their own opinions on it.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/internet-regulation
I know a lot of people who would not have had their degrees had it not been for Wikipedia or Sparknotes, even 4th year. Hard to believe.
Being a commie Brit, tho, I don't actually know what legislation the US congress are trying to pass, and how it will effect websites like Wikipedia... but if they say it's bad then I trust them!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It is legislation that would allow for a copyright holder to have the government shut down any site holding their content without explicit permission (a site like YouTube, for example, would be eligible for shutdown if any copyright holder claimed their content on the site. YouTube would have to comply rapidly with removing the content or else they could be blocked until willing to remove it. This would be hard on smaller companies and websites because they would have to be able to intensely and very frequently be able to find if any content is on their site without explicit permission, despite their small staff not being able to monitor with the same staffing power as larger companies. If just any one user uploads a part of a movie and YouTube is not made aware, then the government has the right to send them notice that they must comply with removing the content or face being shutdown until reviewed as having complied at a later time).
The other part of the bill, which would affect Wikipedia, is the part where any site that even contains a link to reach a different site hosting copyrighted material without explicit permission can be blocked until they comply. Wikipedia, Google, and many major forums take issue with this because they contain numerous links and it is such a sensitive law that all their links would have to be scoured to check if the sites they lead to contain copyrighted material without permission. Something as little as a source cited in Wikipedia that leads to an article with a picture that wasn't posted on that smaller site with permission would hold Wikipedia and the hosting site responsible.
It basically permits government censorship on behalf of the major corporations that produce mass amounts of copyrighted content that spreads on the web. Even good-natured sites are vulnerable if any person posts a link to any other site with misused copyrighted material.
This is how it was explained to me from what I have heard, but I apologize if I got it wrong.
Although it's similar in most places and good lord don't get me started on the UK, I don't think any first world country does hypocrisy quite like America. A country founded on such amazing principles, too. Ironic is the plight of American modernity.
I'm sure Jefferson would have agreed with everything you just said, Tout. -{
Spoken like a person who doesn't live here. As a person who does live here, I will just say I disagree.
I'm just saying, you are the only Western country without single payer healthcare and you pay more per GDP than Canada.
45,000 Americans die each year because they can't afford healthcare (Harvard medical school numbers).