
SOPA lives—and MPAA calls protests an "abuse of power" - jterenzio
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/sopa-livesand-mpaa-calls-protests-an-abuse-of-power.ars
======
bitops
_> A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one,
designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working
diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals._

This statement, in my eyes, shows just how ridiculous the whole thing is.
Regardless of your political leanings, I think most folks in the US right now
agree that Congress is doing a pretty shoddy job of representing the people's
interests. It's basically a joke, on both sides of the aisle at the moment,
when politicians claim to be doing what's best for the public.

There are a lot of things that go right every day, and we don't hear about
them, which is unfortunate.

But the things that politicians are beating their chests over right now are so
obviously in the interests of lobbying groups and "big money" that it's
ridiculous. Lady Gaga might lose money to piracy, but she is hardly a starving
artist. And those artists that are usually are happy to get ANY kind of
exposure, even if it's through piracy.

Also, and this is lost sometimes in the debate, piracy is responsible for the
spread of a lot of ideas. And almost everyone does it at some point in their
life. Even Lars Ulrich from Metallica - he and James bonded while Lars was at
James's house, ripping LPs to tape. Times have not changed much.

~~~
nitrogen
Most people are dissatisfied with Congress, but I suspect that if you asked
them to compare America to anywhere else in the world, they'd immediately jump
to America's defense. My favorite line I've heard from some of my friends:
"Our system may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got."

~~~
bitops
Absolutely, I'm in the same boat.

The reason it's so upsetting is precisely for the reasons you state. I
(perhaps foolishly?) believe that America has the opportunity to be a role
model for the rest of the world in terms of how a society can work.

America has its problems. I will be the first to agree with that.

But for all its problems, America has a lot going for it. It's a relatively
free society, there is social mobility (more for some than others, it's true)
and it's a nice place to live, even just in terms of its geography. (I live in
California and so that of course will make me biased).

Consider - America is a country that, despite all its problems, people risk
their lives to get into. There's a simple reason why America continues to
attract illegal immigrants - it's better than wherever they came from. So much
so that they'll pay sleazy people to transport them across borders under the
cover of night. It sounds dramatic, but that's because it is!

So - America is great and I'd personally like it to stay that way. That's why
it's the responsibility of the people living in America to keep their backyard
clean and their politicians in line.

~~~
cfm_80919
> I (perhaps foolishly?) believe that America has the opportunity to be a role
> model for the rest of the world in terms of how a society can work.

Yes, you believe foolishly. See below for why.

> But for all its problems, America has a lot going for it. It's a relatively
> free society, there is social mobility (more for some than others, it's
> true) and it's a nice place to live, even just in terms of its geography. (I
> live in California and so that of course will make me biased). Consider -
> America is a country that, despite all its problems, people risk their lives
> to get into. There's a simple reason why America continues to attract
> illegal immigrants - it's better than wherever they came from.

Background: I am an United States citizen now working in northern Europe.

To quote a TED Talk, "If you want the American Dream, move to Denmark."

The United States is _not_ a free society. Is it more free than China? Yes. Is
it more free than the majority of the OCED? No. They have gotten very good at
selling the "American Dream", that is the sole reason people still risk their
lives to get into it.

The dream cracked for me when I realised that despite 10 years of programming
experience, I could not get a job in the U.S.; whereas, one month after
searching for work in Europe and I had a job offer.

"Well, why didn't you start your own business in the U.S.?" My answer is
simple: I am sick of living "at the pleasure of the king". To live in the U.S.
is to be constantly unsure of where you stand with respect to the law. This
applies doubly so if you start a business.

This problem with the law results from two positions:

1\. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.

2\. Interpretation of the law can change.

This brings up some major problems. Principally, how can I know the law if the
interpretation (and thus the application) of the law is not constant? Add in
low levels of corruption (on average, the bad ones are really bad) and
different application of the law as a function of a person's class and you
might begin to understand why I want no part of living at the pleasure of the
king.

~~~
bitops
_> Background: I am an United States citizen now working in northern Europe.
To quote a TED Talk, "If you want the American Dream, move to Denmark."_

That's interesting to me as I am a Danish citizen living in the US. I grew up
in Denmark but have no intention of ever moving back permanently.

I don't know how long you've lived in Denmark, but perhaps you are familiar
with "Janteloven"? To someone who did not grow up in Scandinavia, it may just
seem like another one of those cultural quirks that pops up from time to time.
But, it is quite real and drilled into your head from the moment you're born.
Some parts of the country are worse than others in this respect, but everyone
succumbs to it at times. Many Danes make it a point to vigorously deny this.

Perhaps it's just because I grew up there, but I was overjoyed when I found
out that my family was moving to the US. I definitely feel more at home here
than anywhere else in the world.

With that said, I can absolutely understand why you, as an American, would
like and probably prefer to live in Denmark. The people _are_ friendly
(mostly, there's always a grouch somewhere), it's a well-educated culture, and
the social safety net is enviable. If you're okay with the tax rate and don't
mind the weather, I would agree it's quite idyllic.

Also, the points you make about the US being a litigious society are well
taken. The US is rightly made a laughing stock for people being able to sue
McDonalds for making them fat. That's just ridiculous.

So I think it may just be that we value different things in life. I've met
many American expats in Europe who would never want to go back, who feel, as I
do, that where they are is their home. If we all are interested in making
where we live a better place, that's probably the best we can do.

------
chernevik
"It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as
gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in
order to further their corporate interests."

Man, I HATE it when companies do that.

~~~
nostromo
What I love about that quote is it could clearly be used to condem the PSAs
they've been playing in theaters and tacking on DVDs quite some time now. For
example: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE9-W9JNjio>

~~~
elithrar
> What I love about that quote is it could clearly be used to condem the PSAs
> they've been playing in theaters and tacking on DVDs quite some time now.
> For example: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE9-W9JNjio>

Those lovely, piracy prevention notices/copyright infringement notices on the
Blu-Ray's I've _purchased_. That can't be skipped.

~~~
electromagnetic
I stopped buying DVDs back when I stopped being able to skip the 15 minutes of
commercials and 5 minutes of copyright notices, because apparently I need to
be warned in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German, etc.

I'm not paying to be advertised to. I'm not paying to be threatened with FBI
notices. So my solution is _I'm just not paying._

~~~
gchpaco
I remember discussing with friends of mine whether or not it would be
reasonable to have a DVD player that, upon encountering unskippable content,
automatically skipped it. None of us could come up with any difficulty there.

~~~
zoul
As far as I know DVD is a licensed technology and the companies that produce
DVD players probably have some draconic measures in the license to prevent
them from doing this. I think there used to be some players with an easily
accessible factory settings, and the info about how to tweak the factory
settings conveniently leaked, but I’m not sure how that worked in the end.

~~~
nodata
They can't use the DVD logo if they do that. That's it iirc.

~~~
papercrane
They also can't license the patents related to DVD playback.

~~~
onemoreact
I am not 100% sure you are allowed to limit who can use a patent in that
fashion. IANAL, but _requiring_ non monetary compensation may not be allowed.
[http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9208.ht...](http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9208.html)

------
sage_joch
Chris Dodd went from being a senator in 2010 to being head of the MPAA in
2011... and he calls political protest an abuse of power? He is the canonical
example of what's wrong with our revolving door political system.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
There's a curious parallel in the social malignancy between the banks he used
to regulate and the MPAA he now commands.

Both had (and have) a legitimate purpose, both delivered value to society, and
both used the proceeds of their enterprise to secure rents at the cost of
society.

I cannot empathise with the OP on the whole; the music and publishing
industries, though kicking and screaming plenty, are reforming. The film
industry has yet to figure out heads and tails of their predicament, but
neither did Kodak and we rarely call their incompetence evil.

Where I converge is on the malignancy of the industries actions; SOPA/PIPA is
an attack on civil and productive society. In that act of selfishness and
rather-burn-Berlin-than-let-her-fall rhetoric is, in my mind, morally UN-
forgivable.

------
polemic
"some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their
users..."

I wonder if the MPAA has heard of DRM. Of course, said 'interests' have
evaluated the cost of annoying their customers against the social and economic
cost of SOPA and make their own decision.

"... or turn them into their corporate pawns"

Because, in the eyes of the MPAA, information is bad and/or people are stupid.

"It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the
marketplace today."

Using their market freedom to protect their market freedom? How dare they!

Etc.

"...designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working
diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals."

Yes, the poor and weak American elected official must be protected from the
wrath of the informed populous.

Le Sigh.

~~~
dgreensp
Your comment is obviously just a gimmick designed to punish Congress.

------
defen
Chris Dodd? That name sounds familiar. Wasn't that guy a U.S. Senator for 30
years? Oh right...

> In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he
> would not work as a lobbyist," Dodd was identified by The New York Times as
> the likely replacement for Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for
> the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The hiring was officially
> announced on March 1, 2011.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd>

Between this and the "debate" on MSNBC the other day, it makes me despair when
the other side has that kind of firepower and disregard for fair play. Classic
example of regulatory capture (in this case, of the US Congress, which is
explicitly designated in the Constitution as having the power to establish
copyright).

------
feralchimp
The great-great-grandpappy of whoever authored this press release, in late
August of 1831, in a dispatch from Southampton County, VA:

"It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on
[Negroe slaves] for [labor] and use their services. It is also an abuse of
power given the [sunshine and fresh air] these [Negroes] enjoy in the [cotton
fields] today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the [Negroes]
that serve as gateways to [cheap cotton] intentionally skew the [shovels and
pitchforks] to incite their [fellow human witnesses] in order to further their
[basic human] interests."

------
RexRollman
So protests and black outs in protest of a bad bill are an abuse of power but
funneling millions of dollars to create a bill that censors the Internet
isn't? I don't think I could detest the MPAA more than I do at this very
moment.

~~~
notJim
No, they actually both are. Just because one of the abuses of power is in our
favor in this instance doesn't mean it isn't an abuse of power.

~~~
fourspace
How is a company exercising its freedom to deliver whatever product it wants
to deliver an abuse of power? Any power that Google or Reddit has is the
outcome of providing value to their customers, and in return their customers
providing dollars or time. Any such "power" is not the result of legislation
and enforcement at the point of a gun. No legislation forces you to use
Google.

On the other hand, the MPAA/RIAA paying millions of dollars to buy off
politicians and write legislation is very obviously an abuse of power, power
that was never voluntarily granted to them in the first place. If this law
passes, you will absolutely be forced at gunpoint to conform to the will of
the MPAA.

------
MetallicCloud
I have to give it to Wikipedia, they're blackout is having the desired
effects.

Ever since they've announced the blackout, it's been all over Australian
newspapers and radio. I hope it's having the same effect in America.

~~~
robryan
Yeah, this whole issue pretty much got zero Australian media attention before
the wikipedia blackout was announced.

------
nkassis
Yeah and what does Dodd and the MPAA call those stupid warnings and crap they
add at the beginning of every movie telling us we are thief etc. ?

If you don't know what I mean, here is a funny parody of these warnings:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg>

The Hypocrisy is at an all new level.

------
scott_w
Oh the irony...

Remind me, the next time I write to my MP, that I'm abusing my power and
trying to subvert democratically elected representatives.

~~~
bad_user
The democratic way to get your voice heard is through lobbying and huge
donations. Everybody knows that.

------
jlcx
"Abuse of power," say the people who are bribing politicians to break the
Internet in an attempt to preserve their outdated business model.

------
Shenglong
He has a valid point. Blacking out in protest is obviously an abuse of power,
while bribing politicians isn't at all. Shame on the tech companies.

~~~
sliverstorm
You missed the memo?

Protests: Unethical Bribes: Ethical

------
guelo
It's so disgusting that Chris Dodd just retired from being a senator for 30
years and now is the CEO of a corporate lobbying firm pushing legislation in
congress. He represents everything that is wrong with politics in the country.
Fuck him.

------
wwweston
"It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as
gateways to information intentionally skew the facts"

You know what I've noticed about this? When it comes to this topic, the people
on the PIPA/SOPA side of things who are saying the facts are getting skewed
NEVER get around to actually discussing the substance of the facts and trying
to set the record straight.

Go ahead, Mr. Dodd. Educate us -- if you can. You and the clients you've sold
yourself to have a pretty big media platform for speaking yourself. Surely it
wouldn't be too big of a challenge to address _specific_ misconceptions,
rather than just using weasel words to imply that there's a problem that you
can't seem to actually explain.

------
toyg
This sentence is often abused, but it does look incredibly apt in this
context:

"First they ignore you _(the 90s - "internet what? here, buy some CDs
instead")_

then they laugh at you _(2000s - "we can shut down those nerds in seconds!")_

then they fight you _(2010s - "let's write laws all over the world to
criminalize new technology")_

then you win." _(2020s...?)_

~~~
Helianthus
let's just win now.

~~~
jsilence
Is there any usable decentralized DNS system right now?

Such a system would not have to handle all the DNS resolutions, only those
where the Domain owner thinks the Domain is beeing censored. He'd then inject
the real Name/IP into the alternative system. The alternative DNS could be
decentralized. It only has to make sure the list is not beeing tampered with.

Like dnsmasq mutated with Bitcoin.

~~~
dlitz
Introducing: Namecoin <http://dot-bit.org/>

------
tytso
Hmmm.... what about the abuse of power by the Copyright Lobby pouring millions
of millions of dollars into the legislator's campaigns and PAC's? That kind of
lobbying is OK, while net.lobbying isn't?

Sigh...

------
ec429
I think the /real/ abuse of power here isn't the RIAA/MPAA at all... it's the
US (or rather, govt and certain corporations thereof) thinking that because
key Internet infrastructure is located on their territory, they have a right
to screw with it.

If the US were to start messing with, say, DNS, it seems fairly obvious that
they couldn't restrict the effects to their own country (especially since the
Internet is canonically /not/ organised around national boundaries). So,
they'd be breaking not only their own internet but everyone else's too - and
they simply do not have that right, morally speaking.

If bills like SOPA/PIPA pass, I intend to write to my MP about the importance
of establishing a separate infrastructure that co-operates with, but is not
dominated by, the existing system. The US has too much control over things
like name authorities and SSL root CAs. ICANN is a US corporation. If the US
wanted to break the BGP routing table, they wield enough power to do it (heck,
AS7007 did it by /accident/).

It is becoming increasingly clear that the US cannot be trusted with
stewardship of the global Internet; a still more decentralised approach is
needed.

(Maybe, if they break it entirely, we can build a new one with all the lessons
we've learned over the past few decades about how to build peer-to-peer
decentralised internetworking. Plus, y'know, we could use IPv6 from the start)

------
pinaceae
someone should go on Foxnews and explain to those viewers that this is:

1., Big government grabbing the freedom of its people

2., After freedom of speech, your guns are next. They will raid your homes
without warrants on the pure premise that someone has maybe placed a gun
there.

Turn the Foxnews/Tea Party monster against Murdoch.

------
jfoutz
Ya know, for a 30 billion dollar market (disks: <http://www.degonline.org/> \+
tickets: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States>), they're
getting a lot of special attention.

------
Lagged2Death
What would be the other reasons to have power?

<http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-08-04/>

------
walru
Good grief. Have we gone back to third grade?

Funnily enough, this is the same attitude GoDaddy copped just as the shit
started to hit the fan.

Tomorrow should prove to be fun.

------
waiwai933
"It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them
for information and use their services."

You (i.e. Mr. Dodds and cohorts) are more than welcome to support the book
industry, who, like you, are having some difficulty adjusting to technological
advances (though not as much), and purchase a copy of the Encyclopedia
Britannica for information to replace Wikipedia, which, as we all obviously
know, is made up of copyright thieves (just look at all the [WP:Copyvio]s that
exist!). But obviously that's not the solution, since you want free (as in
gratis) information. /sarcasm

I'll admit it's not hypocrisy yet, but I'd say it's bordering on it.

------
mynameishere
"A boy testifying in court after murdering his parents, begging mercy on the
grounds of being an orphan."

Canonical example of chutzpah.

------
sterling312
I think rather than saying that this is an abuse of power, MPAA with its
massive lobbying power should really reconsider its position. Lobbying was
particularly helpful way to reduce information inefficiencies to the
government prior to the existence of the internet. The opinion of the smaller,
individual voters would only be reflected on a voting day, hence every 2 or 4
years depending on if we are talking about a congressmen or a senator.
However, with the progression of free flowing information, aka the internet,
the opinion of the public became more readily available, to a point where it
is in direct competition with an older form that is the lobbying system. Of
course, I'm not saying that lobbyists are completely obsolete. But what I am
saying is that the new form of information and opinion expression using the
internet will take a bigger and bigger share of the way the constituents
actually express themselves to the politicians. Hence, instead of complaining
about it, they really just got to embrase it, and learn that what if they are
indeed plotting to hurt the consumers, that even if they go around the
consumers and directly to Washington, they will not be able to get away with
it without consequences.

------
alexqgb
If you run media companies that own nominally-independent news operations, it
is not an abuse of power to 'discourage' their coverage of your legislative
agenda. If a media company that opposes this agenda successfully spotlights
your non-abuse of power, it is a clear abuse of power.

Likewise, it's not a class-war until they hit back. In both cases the logic is
entirely consistent.

------
libraryatnight
I know there are blackouts, and boycotts of other SOPA supporters, but I would
love it if there were a significant boycotting of the going to the movies and
purchasing dvds/blurays.

I know it's unlikely, but this organization could use a reminder we're not
just political opposition, we're part of their customer base.

~~~
stonemetal
I know there is RIAA-less music and people have made RIAA-less music discovery
services. Is there a MPAA-less movie industry?

~~~
icebraining
Most non-US based movie industries? MPAA is composed of just six studios:

    
    
        MPAA’s members are the six major U.S. motion picture studios
        Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
        Paramount Pictures Corporation
        Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
        Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
        Universal City Studios LLC
        Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

------
sek
The bully plays the victim....

~~~
joering1
well, the founding fathers were called terrorist too -- both by English
establishment when singing DOI on 7/4, and even recently by FEMA trainers.

I think its good to see them being angry. It shows we getting somewhere while
they can't get anywhere other than bitch about the whole thing.

------
fuzzylizard
So voluntary blackouts in protest of SOPA are to be stopped because they are
dangerous gimmicks, but a bill that will allow the government to blackout
websites isn't?

How exactly are these people so blind to this kind of obvious contradiction?
It completely baffles me that any intelligent human can see this bill as a
good thing.

It also scares me that politicians and lobby groups are using the idea of
protecting "American" jobs as one of the main selling points for getting this
bill past. It is far to obvious that American hasn't realized that to survive
in this world one must join the global community and not either separate
oneself from it nor try to rule it.

~~~
pyre

      > How exactly are these people so blind to
      > this kind of obvious contradiction
    

It's being spoken by someone that jumped from Congress to top of the MPAA. I
don't think he has much in the way of scruples.

------
jshowa
One of the major problems is copyright. The copyright laws have gotten so out
of hand in this country that things still retain copyright long after the
creator is dead. Back when it was first issued, it use to be only 28 years in
1710, but it has just increased and increased... I mean, what good is money if
your dead? Does the media industry really need to make more than billions and
billions of each year? And its not like they're that original, they release
old films and books countless times and you're telling me its impossible to
turn a profit in 28 years? It's ridiculous www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

------
alexqgb
Credit Chris Dodd with this: the man knows how to troll.

------
adrianwaj
I'd be happy to see the RIAA and MPAA blackout forever.

~~~
draggnar
What would really be the reaction if, in protest over - lets say legislation
written by lobbyists from Silicon Valley that would make any variation of SOPA
illegal - the big media companies had a one day blackout. Why aren't they
considering this? Would people flip out because the new episode of Jersey
Shore was supposed to be on? Would they understand the motivations and join in
protest by contacting legislators?

------
notJim
It seems like everyone in this thread is falling for a false dichotomy. I
would argue that both the MPAA and many internet sites are abusing power. In
an ideal system, neither one of them would be able to do what both parties are
doing. Now, we don't have an ideal system, so I'm still in support of the
blackouts, but I'm going to call a spade a spade and say this is an abuse of
power.

~~~
sage_joch
I think you're drawing a false equivalence. On one side, the MPAA/RIAA are
bribing our elected officials to turn online communities into major business
liabilities. On the other, existing online communities have rallied the
companies that host them to take a stand. Remember, Reddit was the first major
company to announce a blackout. And they wouldn't have done that without a lot
of prodding from the community.

------
bitwize
Chris Dodd was my senator, and I can tell you this: he ain't in a position to
be talking about abuses of power.

------
fsethi
Apparently the MPAA is made up of a small group of individuals nobody really
knows. They are generally shrouded in secrecy and have very odd subjective
systems. They tried it with Howard Hughes 90 years ago, ultimately they must
adapt.

------
fufulabs
Yessss.. make it easy for more people to hate you. Please spout more nonsense.

------
Kevin_Marks
Chris Dodd's sanctimonious bluster translated back into English:
<http://j.mp/MPAAbluster>

------
Peaker
They're routinely publicly accusing Google of supporting piracy.

Why isn't Google, in turn, publicly accusing them of corruption and bribery?

~~~
lvh
One's a crime, and the other ain't. You can't accuse people of crimes without
being able to back it up.

------
schnaars
"...stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns"

But totally cool to pay for government pawns.

------
barce
tl;dr - Pot calling the kettle black:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black>

~~~
suneilp
Alternative link for tomorrow:
[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pot%20calling...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pot%20calling%20the%20kettle%20black)

------
NoSalt
LOL ... I love it, "an abuse of power".

------
snissn
I wish they'd just stop making movies

------
Helianthus
Now that we're playing their game, it's only natural that we get hit with the
political soundbite insults that survive not a moment's scrutiny. Battle won,
war ongoing... but maybe we can start shouting insults too.

Only ours will have the weight of truth.

------
shingen
It's about time to actually begin punishing Hollywood for the evil shit
they're doing. It's not enough to just respond in defense when they try, time
and time again, to destroy the Internet.

It's time for a boycott, along with a large campaign, something along the
lines of: Americans against Hollywood. It's necessary to turn their public
image into a giant black mark that nobody wants associated with.

~~~
sek
The first comment on ars was very interesting, lets lobby for transparent
accounting practices in the Movie business.

It is incredible what they do, they almost never pay taxes this way and a lot
of people at the bottom get screwed. It is really painful to hear when they
argue with the poor workers and blame the internet.

~~~
schwabacher
You know they can turn that right back around on the tech industry, right?

~~~
corford
Excuse my naivety but how exactly (excluding the handful of tech industry
stock option scandals over the last 15 years or so)?

~~~
schwabacher
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-
sho...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-
how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html)

Google, Microsoft, and Facebook among others use tax dodges to pay negligible
amounts of tax in the United States.

------
maeon3
Politics by the numbers, wound a politically motivated entity and it uses
every tactic at its diaposal to destroy you. Lets show them that we can play
politics too.

------
shareme
Wait, having the LAW work for only lobbied interest isn't an abuse of pOWER?!

------
MartinCron
Just to be clear, I don't support SOPA/PIPA, and I'm all in favor of the
blackouts. I don't think it's an abuse of power. As a display of power, it's a
little bit unsettling. Ask yourself, if Wikipedia went dark over something you
didn't agree with, would you be OK with that? Along the same lines, are you OK
with them _not_ going dark about other things you may care about?

~~~
devs1010
The bill threatens the existence of Wikipedia itself, its their right to do
whatever they want to protest it. I think your're misjudging the situation a
bit. This isn't the same as protesting some random cause, its something they
believe can directly affect their organization's continued ability to serve
its users.

~~~
MartinCron
Again, I don't support the proposed legislation, but the rhetoric of "this
bill threatens the very existence of Wikipedia" is a bit hyperbolic and may
harm the cause.

I know it's not just some random cause, but it makes me think of questions
like, "what would happen if Wikipedia (or similar entity) were to go dark
until we got marriage equality?"

------
gojomo
The 'abuse of power' claim will not seem absurd to many of the casual users of
blacked-out sites.

Take Wikipedia, for example. To the extent users are aware of Wikipedia as a
cohesive unit, they probably assumed that its highest value was to inform
people, always working through controversies/technical-problems/legal-
problems/etc. to achieve that goal. Wikipedia has been granted credibility via
that understanding.

In a way, it's a bit like a doctor's duty, to treat even those they dislike.
Or a lawyer's, to defend even criminals.

The blackout sends a message that, for at least 24 hours, lobbying on one
topic is a higher duty than informing people about everything else.

Of course, as an entity sovereign over its own operations and property,
Wikipedia has the "power" and right to do what it wants.

But Wikipedia has earned another dimension of "power" that's been freely
granted to it by readers, based on their estimation of its mission. _That_
power is somewhat conditional, and it's that power that even a well-
intentioned blackout could be seen as abusing and undermining.

As of the day of the blackout, Wikipedia is no longer providing information
like air, free to all. It's rationing information as power, to be withheld
occasionally for political advantage.

~~~
kingkawn
Your point about information rationing as power is valid, but there is a
fundamental threat to the existence of the internet as is, and I think given
that wikipedia relies on that freedom its important for them to make this
point firmly.

I don't think law and medicine are good comparisons here.

Lawyers should defend people they dislike because they believe in the value of
the adversarial system in teasing out justice from subjectivity.

Doctors treat all people because there is no credible way to value one life
over another that does not ultimately trace its source to prejudice.

Wikipedia sees SOPA as a fundamental threat to itself and the internet in
general. Users of the internet should be made aware of the stakes. Nobody will
die or lose their freedom from Wikipedia strongly making this point to its
users.

(A slight caveat being that most doctors I know turn to wikipedia/google
multiple times a day for clarifications of diagnoses or to provide hypotheses
for a given set of symptoms that they hadn't previously considered. I guess
someone could die from the absence of this resource, but mostly doctors use
them because its easier than logging into one of the medical databases and
more up-to-date).

~~~
gojomo
'Making aware' does not require withholding service.

I tend to think any line of reasoning that begins, "this is such a fundamental
threat to our survival that normal practice must be discarded" is a signifier
of panicked groupthink, most common in war and campaign season, but that's
just me.

As of today, Wikipedia is an always-on information utility. As of Thursday, it
will be also understood as an occasional lobbyist/information-withholding-
disciplinarian.

And I hadn't thought about the effect on medical/safety reference during the
blackout period until earlier today. Given the large numbers of professionals
and laypeople who rely on Wikipedia (far more than they should!), it's
possible someone somewhere will die because of the blackout.

 _updated to add:_

The health risk applies via the Reddit blackout, too. For some people, this is
the support community from which they get urgent life guidance. See for
example:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/nzfow/my_life_was_sa...](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/nzfow/my_life_was_saved_this_morning_by_reddit/?limit=500)

~~~
lnguyen
"It's possible someone somewhere will die"

That's a bit extreme isn't it? But if Wikipedia (or any other site) is that
important of a resource, imagine what would happen if it disappeared as a
result of being blacklisted by SOPA/PIPA or an equivalent piece of
legislation.

They're perfectly in their right to advocate against a misguided effort that
could threaten and impair their ability to function/exist.

~~~
gojomo
You're presenting a 'false dilemma':

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma> (link may be broken due to
political protest)

The only people currently taking Wikipedia offline are Wikipedians themselves.
Anything else is hypothetical and unlikely.

~~~
lnguyen
Hypothetical and unlikely? You're talking about legislation that is supported
(if not written by) groups that don't exactly have a sparkling track record of
being reasonable and not abusing any bit of power that they're given or feel
that they're entitled to. Take the Universal/Megaupload fiasco for example.

The Wikipedians are taking action so that "unlikely" isn't even a possibility.

And while Wikipedia may be a central resource, it's not the only or primary
source of information (see all the citations). At most it'll be an
inconvenience but one that will prove a point.

