

Wikipedia, other websites go dark in anti-piracy bill protest - Xurinos
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/18/tech/sopa-blackouts/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
I looked at CNN's frontpage take on the SOPA blackouts.  Here is their definition of SOPA:<p>If SOPA passes, copyright holders would be able to complain to law enforcement officials and get websites shut down. <i>Search engines and other providers would have to block rogue sites when ordered to do so by a judge.</i> Sites could be punished for hosting pirated content -- and Internet companies are worried they could be held liable for users' actions.<p>I placed the emphasis around the offending line.  This wordplay makes SOPA sound more palatable.  Under DMCA, copyright holders already have the right to demand that websites take down offending material.  Under SOPA, a judge can order the search engine itself to be shutdown.  Search engines, news aggregation sites, and online community providers must be proactive in removing links before a judge is even involved.  Under SOPA, the definition of a "rogue site" is anything that happens to have a link or piece of information representing a violation of copyright.<p>See "No Duty to Monitor" at http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html
======
ugh
How so? Can you point out passages?

That seemed like pretty standard reporting to me. They explain what’s
happening and bring out the position of each side, with an emphasis on
presenting the views of those who take part in today’s protest.

There is also a disclaimer, though you might argue it’s a bit far down.

~~~
CWIZO
Take the title "Wikipedia, other websites go dark in anti-piracy bill
protest". I immediately read that as "wikipedia is supporting piracy". YMMV

~~~
joezydeco
CBS radio pretty much said the same thing. "..went black to protest anti-
piracy measures". We're all so busy blacking things out we forgot that the
media needs guidance in framing the issues.

~~~
roguecoder
A press release calling this "the internet censorship bill" could have gone a
long way. Possibly along with more comparisons with China and Iran; appealing
to xenophobia and American exceptionalism seems a usually-winning strategy.

~~~
kamjam
Even if you released that press release, what are the chances of the media
reporting it that way. The article itself states it, CNN's parent supports
SOPA... so don't you think the headline is written to grab attention and frame
it as "Wikipedia and co don't support SOPA therefore they must support
piracy". No way would they make the movement seem like a good thing!

------
swordswinger12
Eh, give CNN some credit. They could've done a whole lot worse, that article
did a decent job of presenting both sides.

~~~
abraxasz
I very much agree. I honestly think that the article was fair. CNN didn't try
to hide that it's parent company was supporting SOPA (which is maybe obvious
for american folks, but for a foreigner like me, it was worth mentioning), and
detailled the arguments of both sides.

~~~
weaksauce
The corporate parent alliances are not always obvious to Americans either;
it's very much needed in an article like this.

------
meow
A lot better than the asses at Fox. Just look at the malice dripping from this
fox article: [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/18/wikipedia-goes-
dar...](http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/18/wikipedia-goes-dark-
for-24-hours-to-protest-us-web-piracy-bills/)

~~~
toddmorey
The worst part of the article is actually a quote form a Wikipedia editor.
It's dismissive and inaccurate, but you always know that when you see the
phrase "before we know it..":

"My main concern is that it puts the organization in the role of advocacy, and
that's a slippery slope," said editor Robert Lawton, a Michigan computer
consultant who would prefer that the encyclopedia stick to being a neutral
repository of knowledge. "Before we know it, we're blacked out because we want
to save the whales."

~~~
bad_user
I don't get people with this line of thought. This is about survival, not
about fighting worthy causes, even though saving whales is a noble cause and I
wouldn't mind if Wikipedia fought for it.

------
tgrass
From the guidelines: "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put
gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it."

------
ajaimk
I'd say it I pretty neutral on the representation front. They do mention:
"SOPA's supporters -- including CNN parent company Time Warner"

------
cbr
"Media companies have united in favor of it, while tech's power players are
throwing their might into opposing it."

~~~
tripzilch
Also implying that the "tech power players" are not media companies is silly.

------
pgbovine
quite ironic given the poster's highly-editorialized title

------
roguecoder
This is typical of modern "opinions differ on the shape of the earth"
reporting. Newspapers don't care what the truth is and won't ever pass
judgment, no matter how fantastical someone's claims. All they can do is
report what Democrats say, what Republicans say and what the Tea Party says.
Reporting anything else, including reality, would be considered biased.

------
mikehuffman
If MPAA wanted a workable sinister solution to the SOPA/PIPA problem, it would
offer immunity to youtube, twitter, myspace, facebook, reddit, digg, etc.
Which would allow for the abuse to continue unabated without all of the
"common folk" getting excited about it.

------
thejteam
Am I the only one who has had no problem viewing wikipedia today? Main page
fine looks normal except for the SOPA statement near the top. I've read
several articles that I've gotten from google searches.

Yes English language, yes I'm in the USA.

~~~
thejteam
Never mind. I read the FAQs and you can read it just fine if javascript is
disabled, which I do by default.

------
kristopolous
check out anything from pcmag.com on SOPA if you want to see spin that makes
you dizzy, I could link to a lot of articles, but I invite you to read the
pieces on the site itself.

------
drhowarddrfine
I find the article is one of the best and most informed I've read. And by CNN
of all people.

