Feeds

back to article Google to join Wednesday's anti-SOPA protest

Google will join Wednesday's anti-SOPA and anti–PROTECT IP Act (aka PIPA) protest by noting its opposition to the bills on its home page. "Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Bronze badge
Go

This shit....

....just got real.

Or something.

Steven R

4
0
Silver badge

IT IS ABOUT TIME A STAND WAS MADE....

This kind of legislation will criminalise huge numbers of law abiding people and open them to legal abuse from a minority self-interest group.

What was civil law will become criminal offences.

Everyone who uses the web will be at risk of prosecution, children doing homework, grandparents surfing the web, workers in offices.

You, me and them over the road all at risk of being prosecuted in a foreign court for doing something that is not illegal in the UK.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

When the US movie industry...

...is using a treaty - created to facilitate extradition of terrorist suspects - to extradite a student for doing something which is not even proved to be illegal in the UK (and he wasn't even hosting it in the USA), there is something very, very wrong.

19
0
Anonymous Coward

when you hear that

A former Senator is CEO of MPAA then u know how crooked and how bent and how influenced by outside lobby groups they are.

How many favours and how many brown envelopes later?

9
0
Pirate

Follow the real money

Google fined $500 million for advertising on rogue websites. Google donates $500,000 to WP. WP goes black. Pay back!

1
1
Anonymous Coward

The power of the web

May now be revealed!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

google?

I'm sure they could manipulate their algorithms to make any sites and supporters sites of this dishonest legislation disappear forever.

They might then consider how censorship of the web works!

Bet they would be the first to blest about it.

2
0
Bronze badge

Get Bing and Google (are there others?)

to simply go dark for DC on Wednesday....

2
0
FAIL

Oh the delicioous irony of it all

Google - Anti piracy - Youtube

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

3
16
Silver badge

Could be worst

Google has to take steps or MegaVideo will eat them!

More seriously, the distribution channel -or indeed the "property" at stake- is unimportant. The rules should be consistent. I can't get my neighbour thrown in jail just by sending a nasty letter suggesting that he might have stolen my lunch. In all modern judiciary systems (excluding the US, apparently) the burden of proof is for the accuser to deal with. I'm all for intellectual property protection (I make a living exclusively from my intellectual process; that should count as intellectuall property. Although for some reason involving me no having billions to spend on lobbying, it apparently doesn't). This SOPA thing is just ridiculous.

5
0
Silver badge
Devil

You are forgetting something

Google also operates the Android Market. The Android Market, the Kindle/Amazon market and iTunes in the long run are something which will make most of the piracy go away.

1. They allow the individual developer a distribution channel including all the financials associated with it.

2. They lock paid apps and app-wrapped content to a _UNIQUE_ user identity maintaining naturally both user rights (move from device to device, etc) as well as user contractual obligations (where and how you can access stuff).

3. They handle revocation, app and content killing as required by contract and do that once again as per "UNIQUE user"-supplier relationship.

They are exactly what RIAA/MPAA do not want to do. They do not want to sell to _YOU_ because this entails all of the responsibilities by contract law and other laws and regulations. They want to get money without going through all of that rigmarole and give nothing in return.

2
2

Good show, chaps

Unprecedented action. Let's hope those technically-incompetent ignoramuses that masquerade as representatives of the people (yes - I'm looking at you, Mr. Smith) take note that in future, they do NOT follow their own misguided agenda or any one else's, such as the entertainment industry

2
0
Silver badge

PIPA?

Oh lord. Acronymizing the acronyms. Why not "PIP Act", so we can add a layer and make it PA?

0
1
Coat

In defence of PIPA

I hear it has a lovely bum.

9
0

The *ONLY* Criminals

is the MPAA/RIAA membership. Nobody else. if this pass in any shape of form it will the the definitive proof that hollywood OWN the USA justice system.

The rest of the world should protest by declaring the MPAA/RIAA a terrorist group and issue international warrrants for the arrest of any of it's members.

This is so serious that it should result in a country wide revolt in the USA where everything that represent the MPAA/RIAA or it's members is DESTROYED.

7
3
Silver badge

Servers as proof.

This protest against the rights of creators simply serves as proof that website operators are fully aware of the importance of piracy and content-theft to the economy of the web.

I am sure that Jim Wales would *love* to be able to enrich his website by putting entire books of copyright-protected material on-line. And considering that of all the huge number of people who either are directly employed by, or contribute to, Wikipedia, he is the only one who gets paid, it is understandable that he feels so much solidarity with a movement to insure that content-creators get nothing for their work.

Really, it's easy to see why website operators are on one side, and the AFL-CIO is on the other.

Oh, and who remembers http://news.softpedia.com/news/Wikipedia-5000-Scandal-80372.shtml?

2
21
Silver badge

Protest against creators rights

Really?????

So you believe creators have a right to have sanctions taken against another, who will be assumed _guilty_ without them even having to prove they _own_ the copyright?

You may well be right about Jim Wales, I'm sure he probably would love to put entire books on WikiPedia. It's not entirely relevant to the argument about whether SOPA/PIPA are good or bad though is it? I mean I personally would love to be rich, doesn't have much bearing on whether laws relating to theft are stringent enough though does it?

I make money from two main sources - bloody hard work and creativity. I maintain a day job and also take/sell photos. Yes I want to see my rights protected, I don't want people ripping off my work, but you know what? I'm not so arrogant as to think that my rights are any more than this - if people want to use my work, I should get paid. That does _NOT_ include most of the provisions made by SOPA. It certainly doesn't include the right to block DNS (albeit now dropped).

It really is this simple - if you can't make enough money to live on from a job, you need to find another (whether as a replacement job or a second job). That's as true for 'creative' people as it is for everyone else, whinging about creators 'rights' and trying to back them with draconian legislation just doesn't cut it.

Anyway;

Personally if I was google, I'd also tweak the search results page so every search was headed by "Did you mean 'why SOPA is dangerous'".

If I was a Government wanting to make some cash, I'd wait until SOPA passes and start offering good tax rates to 'Internet companies' (their term not mine) as the end result of SOPA may well be that for the US the WWW becomes a sort of national intranet when everyone else decides to route around them (especially as SOPA/PIPA aren't the only www related legislation that have been of concern in the US).

6
0
FAIL

Idiot

SOPA is against websites whose primary purpose is to enable the selling of pirated and counterfeit goods. As for the screed against creators rights go back and crawl back under your stone. wikipedia would be nothing if it wasn't for creators, neither would youtube, and neither would any of the search engins. All of it is pre-requisited on the work of creators, remove them and you have no more web.

2
6
Silver badge
FAIL

@Turtle. This is life under SOPA and PIPA:

I write to your boss*, saying:

"Turtle has infringed my copyright. Yours, Richard 12"

Your boss fires you. (Stops paying you, blocks you from the building)

He has no requirement to check that either I do actually own the copyright involved, or that you have actually infringed it.

The only possible way of getting your job back is for you to go to court and prove that you didn't infringe my copyright.

This may be rather difficult, given that proving a negative is damn near impossible, and of course you have no money on account of having no job.

Story ends.

SOPA and PIPA are designed to do exactly this to any online business.

Still like SOPA and PIPA?

That is why it is a piece of **** legislation that could only be drafted by somebody more corrupt then anybody you could possibly think of.

Protecting the rights of content creators is important, but SOPA and PIPA do not do this.

- It's important to remember that the RIAA and MPAA have no interest whatsoever in creators' rights - their interest is exclusively in record and film distribution company profits. Look at the lists of members, that's who they are lobbying on behalf of.

*Technically this would really be your bank and your office building management companies, but that's probably stretching the metaphor a bit far.

1
0
Silver badge
Flame

Since you

worship and adulate "intellectual property" so much, I expect you to, for the next 120 years:

1. Pay the plumber who installed your toilet every time you use it;

2. Pay the electrician who installed the light switches in you home every time you turn them on;

3. Pay the manufacturer of your car every time you drive it;

4. Pay the architect of your house every time you cross the front door.

I could go on, but I think your 2-cell brain should get the picture. FOADIAF.

9
7
Anonymous Coward

So ...

... I should spend a year writing a piece of software and sell it for fifty grand to one person. Or I suppose I could sell it for £50 to one person, and eat sawdust and live in a cardboard box.

Which pricing model would you like the author of your favourite train sim to choose? Would you pay him fifty grand for it? Perhaps he should have written it for free in between plumbing gigs ...

What's your brain cell count these days?

7
3
Silver badge
Devil

Same as most "supporters" you are clueless

The key problem of the MAFIAA is that it continuously refuses to _SELL_ _TO_ _CUSTOMERS_.

Coming back to your example. If I want, I can (and there is more than enough technical means out there) to:

1. Sell my software for 50 quid (or even for 5) and uniquely identify this clone of the software as sold to user A.

2. Identify any "shared" or "leaked" software from user A and sue user A as per current legislation. There is _MORE_ _THAN_ _ENOUGH_ laws and treaties out there to do that. No need to invent any new legislation.

3. I would not even bother with anti-copying provisions. Identifying who leaked it enough to sustain most forms of business model.

4. In a connected world you can make 99% of that fully automated and transparent and there is nothing wrong with that.

That is the problem of the MAFIAA and their BSA bretheren. They do not want to sell to an individually identified customer because this entails the responsibility to that person as a customer instead of treating him the way a racket mob treats someone being shaken for money. They do not wan the customer to have rights (as customary and as specified by law). They want them to have only obligations and those obligations enforced by the state without giving anything in return.

11
3
FAIL

How dumb

Its a matter of moments to anonymize tagged software. I recall doing that on several bits of software back in the 1980s just as an experiment.

But even if the software isn't anonymized and you can tell who bought the leaked copy, that doesn't help if the leaker is in Russia, China, or some other gawd forsaken hell hole. Or indeed if you've sold a copy to some school where a freetarding thief as got their hands on the install disc.

0
0
WTF?

Supporter? I hope you're not pointing that at me.

"The key problem of the MAFIAA"

This is in reply to two posts that don't mention the "MAFIAA" ...

"Identify any 'shared' or 'leaked' software from user A"

Which sounds like some sort of intellectual property to me. If I don't own something, how can someone be said to have illegitimately shared or leaked it? You seem to have assumed that because I'm vaguely in favour of authors (of any sort) being paid per copy of created work, not per act of creation, that I'm some sort of "MAFIAA" goon. Perhaps yourself, or any of the eleven cluetards who upvoted your little speech, can riddle me why.

"sue user A as per current legislation. There is _MORE_ _THAN_ _ENOUGH_ laws and treaties out there to do that. No need to invent any new legislation."

Let's please not continue with this stupid fucking idea that regulation by lawsuit is the basis of a happy (or even barely functioning) society. And who said anything about inventing new legislation? Who the fuck are you shouting at? Myself or Steven Roper?

"Identifying who leaked it enough to sustain most forms of business model."

It sustains the lawyers' business model.

0
0
Bronze badge
Go

The fun is starting

If this bill passes, it will set a bad example for the governments of the rest of the world.

Let the blocking begin.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

It's just another example of increased control over the Internet and a claw back of power over the Internet by the US. This is deeply unfair and nobody wants to have to fly over to the USA to defend themselves of wrong doing.

You can say there's nothing wrong with this act, but the DMCA has been abused and this law would get abused and used for purposes other than its intended use. One company would claim copyright infringement or patent infringement on a competitor shutting down their business until they could defend their case.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

MPAA says: blackout is "dangerous" & "abuse of power"

The MPAA 's CEO (who is a former US Senator - quelle surprise!) has condemned people choosing to black out their web sites as "an abuse of power"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57360499-52/mpaa-blasts-dangerous-anti-sopa-blackouts-as-stunts/

This coming from one of the biggest abusers of power on the planet; an organisation that believes making films gives them the right to extradite under terrorism agreements, create and impose laws world-wide regardless of legal jurisdiction, and sanction / punish based on accusation alone. If ever there was an abuser of power, it is them.

How did the MPAA (and RIAA) get to the point where swathes of people and companies across the World have to take action just in order to keep these two organisations in check? Are films and music really THAT important that any course of action (no matter how draconian or destructive) is justified in order to preserve their business models?

And who does the MPAA think it is to tell people that they cannot choose to blackout their own web sites? What the fuck has it got to do with the MPAA? It's up to the individual web site owner (and possibly also the users of the web site) but as far as the MPAA goes, they should STFU because it's none of their damned business!

Here is a list of sites currently abusing power ... er, I mean taking part in the blackout.

http://www.sopastrike.com/

8
1
Facepalm

Re: Anon Coward at 5:30 GMT

Cnet is in an interesting position to be commenting on SOPA. Their parent company CBS support the bill (as you would expect for a media giant). At the same time, Cnet has distributed over 150 million copies of torrent and other file sharing software, they have a whole section for it in the Downloads tab.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

SOPA?

Save

Our

Piracy

Access?

3
2
Anonymous Coward

Shurely

Screwing Our Patrons Ambitiously

1
0
Mushroom

Facebook

Facebook should shut down - a luxury it will not have once it goes public. 200 million FB zombies without their fix could bring the economy to a screeching halt.

11
0
Joke

or rather increase productivity by 100%?

4
0
Pint

SOPA, PIPA...

I love all these politicized acronyms - I'm really hoping the boys on the hill try introducing a new bill along the lines of the 'Web Accessible Neutralized Knowledge Act' - something that, imho, describes the collective character of these bureaucratic dimwits.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Bronze badge

You think they do not know this?

Jimmy and Google will know this they are not silly.

But the users that go to Wikipedia will initially see the reason before going back to Google for the cached page (as long as they know about it) thus the message still gets sent.

1
0
Silver badge

Or just click your stop button before the Ajax kicks in and provides the "Black out" ;)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Wikipedia is still there really

If you just click through the Wikipedia black-out screen (Learn More) you can then still get to the content. It's only a token black-out. No need to resort to Google.

0
0
Bronze badge
Pirate

Use Adblock Plus to filter this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ABannerListLoader*

Job's a good 'un.

0
1
Trollface

Use IE6

Thanks to creaky old IE6 I was browsing Wikipedia at work and didn't notice any difference.

0
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Google's just protecting it's bottom line

" there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the internet"

How about by enacting a law that forces ad brokers to block advertising (and therefore revenue streams) on sites that have been PROVED in a US court of law to host illegal content? Maybe even giving infringing sites a leeway of X strikes before they're out to account for the massive volumes of pirated stuff?

The reality is that Google will be against ANY form of action against sites hosting illegal content because (a) searches for such sites drive a lot of traffic to Google's search engine and (b) these sites display a LOT of ads that are brokered by Google. The big G is making bucketloads of money from other people's piracy.

And Hey! Copyright holder Lobbyists! Quit acting the victims here, because some of this mess is of your own creation. You want to block piracy? Cool, I'll support that, if in return you (a) put in place a licensing mechanism where if I buy a film / album etc I have FULL rights to copy that as many times I want onto and convert that between any format I want and to play on any device I own so long as it's for reasonable personal / family / friends use. Stop treating your legitimate customers as criminals. and (b) stop lobbying to extend copyright again and again ad infinitum. You get 20 years, 25 years tops, after that it's public domain. That's plenty of time to monetise your creativity, and you can't rest on your laurels and live forever off the rent of one big hit.

1
1
Silver badge

"You want to block piracy? Cool, I'll support that, if in return you (a) put in place a licensing mechanism where if I buy a film / album etc I have FULL rights to copy that as many times I want onto and convert that between any format I want and to play on any device I own so long as it's for reasonable personal / family / friends use."

One word: Ultraviolet. OK, doesn't apply to music, but it may answer some of your gripes.

1
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Yes I know about Ultraviolet. If implemented as specified will be great, I alrady commented to that effect on the Reg article on UV.

But will copyright holders be willing to reduce copyright terms from the current.... what.... 70 years?? in exchange for laws that properly work against online piracy?

0
0

so, only the USA then???

seems ok here in blighty.... ???

0
0
Big Brother

Murdoch?

Mudroach supports SOPA.

Therefore SOPA is bad.

Easy!

3
0

@James Micallef

the only problem with many adverts, is that lazy webdevs, whatever, only use one server, that other dubious websites also use!!

If you use Fanboys adblock on FF, you will know they have an 'ad preference' thing, where **good** ads can be let through... :) :)

- the definition is NO flashing, moving, or sound... at least in my book! :P

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Wikipedia Blackout

Strikes me as being a bit lazy on the technical side. I checked it this morning and it seems to provide your article as normal and then slap the blackout notice over it a split second later.

I can't be arsed checking but I imagine an extension like AdBlock or NoScript could stop the notice from displaying and reveal the article in full after a little tinkering. In fact there could be users who haven't even noticed that there's a blackout on the go.

0
0

Correct - one new AdBlock rule to restore normal Wikipedia service:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BannerLoader&banner=blackout&campaign=English+Wikipedia+Blackout*

But then the blackout itself isn't really the point, it's the drawing people's attention to it that counts. If you're seeking out AdBlock rules then you already know the score.

thedailywtf, on the other hand, are in full shutdown mode :(

1
0
Silver badge

No, it replaces the page content with the blackout bit, simply click stop before this happens.

0
0
Go

JUST TURN JAVASCRIPT OFF

WIKI

1
0
WTF?

TheDailyWTF is not in full shutdown. They're in ironic whiteout and, if you just click the IP address on the page you get to the site as normal....

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.