

What Wikipedia Won't Tell You - citadrianne
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=2

======
waterside81
This was an Op-ed by Cary Sherman, head of RIAA, and not a regular NY Times
staffer. His opinion, is of course, a bit skewed.

~~~
the-cakeboss
Sure, but then again, so is Google's, Wikipedia's, Reddit's, Mozilla's, The
Pirate Bay's, Torrentfreak's etc...

While I do believe Mr. Sherman isn't coming from the best of places, I think
that there was quite a large amount of misinformation coming from various
interested parties, and I have always felt comparing SOPA with China or even
censorship is nothing more than alarmist rhetoric.

~~~
malandrew
I think it is hardly alarmist rhetoric. It's not particularly easy for sites
to be shut down under the current rules, but it's far from impossible.
DaJaz1.com was shut down by the ICE for over a year unjustly, with almost no
recourse for the owner and not one was held accountable.

If that kind of abuse can happen now, it is most certainly not hyperbole that
we will see a LOT more of these injustices happen by taking due process out of
the courts and putting it into the hands of the copyright industry.

Slippery slopes usually are, except when lawyers get involved. I wish I still
had the link, but I once read an extremely informative essay on the impact of
lawyering on the erosion of civil liberties, especially when corporate law is
involved. There is simply too much money supporting the time and effort of
corporate law to the benefit of companies and detriment of citizens, civil
liberties and the commons. Heck, copyright terms now extend beyond the life of
the author. If that's not proof of a slippery slope, I don't know what is.

------
Fargren
_Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that
opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with
constructive alternatives._

This is exactly wrong. It shouldn't be the responsibility of companies to
write laws. On of the big issues that the SOPA/PIPA debacle brought to light
is that if companies are allowed to write laws, they will write them in ways
that fouces on benefiting them instead of the general public.

Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that
proposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to stay away from law
making.

~~~
thrilway
There already are "constructive alternatives" to SOPA and PIPA. They're called
Spotify, iTunes, Rdio, Netflix, Hulu, etc

~~~
chii
They aren't "constructive" from the point of view of the encumbants, who
incidentally, have the largest capital for lobbying.

If we the public can somehow band together, the total lobbying power gained is
actually higher, but obviously, people dont give a shit until it personally
affects them. Hence, if the encumbants can slowly tweak the law, one painless
step at a time, they will win.

------
swang
Funny how the RIAA head complains about it being unfair when they didn't
bother to invite anyone who opposed the bill during the hearings. Yet when
Wikipedia does what it had to do to make a point, it is "unfair" and was
"manufactured controversy"

Also, see previous whining here:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/fighting-online-
pi...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/fighting-online-
piracy.html?_r=1&src=tp)

Really after seeing what the DoJ did to MegaUpload, it raises the question of
why they need more powers seeing as how they are able to take down domains
regardless.

------
gavinpc
From our point of view (Hacker News readers), it's easy to forget that these
blackouts and the mainstream press that they created are the beginning and end
of most people's SOPA education. I heard an intelligent and otherwise well-
informed person say, "Yeah, what was this SOPA thing? It came up all of a
sudden and then went away."

In that context, the focus on "censorship" _is_ a bit misleading. It's a good
way to get people's attention when you don't have the time to explain the DNS
and why it's not an appropriate tool for combating piracy. Indeed,
"censorship" is probably too _weak_ a concept for the damage that SOPA would
have caused to the internet, since it implies a selective redaction instead of
the complete and indiscriminate excommunication of every blacklisted domain. I
wouldn't call it "misinformation," but did people who knew better (so to
speak) choose a "loaded and inflammatory term"? Absolutely.

It is marvelous how the victim of this "digital tsunami" can spin the case in
his favor. Still, it's probably accurate to say that most people didn't
understand what they were opposing.

------
joejohnson
>>>“Old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.” Apparently,
Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral
reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact.

That is utter bullshit. This piece is full of such falsehoods.

~~~
adrusi
fair point, google promises neutrality in its search results. Wikipedia has a
disclaimer about the reliability of its content.

------
lomegor
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act>

------
thekungfuman
This is unacceptable BS.

Sorry I don't have more to contribute. I'm just really disgusted by this.

