Wikipedia to go dark in piracy protest
Updated
It is the battle of the movie makers against the internet and it is coming to a computer near you.
Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has announced it will black out the pages of its English-language website for 24 hours starting Wednesday (US time) in protest at draft anti-online piracy legislation before the US congress.
Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites, getting almost 500 million visitors a month. On Tuesday the site's founder, Jimmy Wales, tweeted that the site would be shutting down.
"Student warning, do your homework early, Wikipedia protesting bad law on Wednesday!" he said on Twitter.
"'Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.' MLK - on Wednesday, Wikipedia demands," Mr Wales said, citing slain US civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
The "bad law" he refers to is known as SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, and it is currently being debated by the US House of Representatives, while the Protect IP Act is the version before the Senate.
The draft legislation has won the backing of Hollywood, the music industry, the Business Software Alliance, the National Association of Manufacturers and the US chamber of commerce.
But last month the founders of Google, Twitter, Wikipedia, Yahoo! and other internet giants expressed concern over the two drafts, saying in an open letter that they would "give the US government the power to censor the web using techniques similar to those used by China, Malaysia and Iran".
Copyright enforcement
America's Institute of Policy Innovation estimates copyright theft costs around $58 billion in America every year, affecting movie studios and music companies who find the material they own being distributed illegally.
Often the pirated material turns up on the internet and what makes SOPA so controversial is that it makes search engines and internet service providers responsible for enforcing copyright protection.
The internet commentator who uses only the name Stilgherrian has been following the issue.
"In brief it means a copyright holder can apply to a court to say a particular website or a particular location online has our copyrighted material on it," he said.
"The court could then issue an order doing a number of things, which would include telling internet service providers to block access to that site or search engines like Google to stop indexing that site and so on."
Under the legislation, a single website would be held responsible for all of the content on it no matter how it had got there and whether users had put it up.
Flow-on effects
Stilgherrian says companies are concerned their entire websites might be taken down by the courts.
"Once you start getting to actually identifying which parts of the site might or might not be infringing, well the copyright holders have in the past tended to aim their legal action fairly broadly," he said.
"We've seen that in Australia in the case of the movie and television industry suing iiNet, the internet service provider, over its supposed copyright infringement by its customers and that's still being thought about by the High Court of Australia.
"And it's with that in mind that this is part of a much longer running global battle, but this is just another front in that battle."
According to University of NSW computer science lecturer Dr Sri Venugopal, Australian companies could also find themselves caught up by the SOPA laws.
"Australians sites could find themselves blocked if there is an Australian site which holds a forum where users can post links to content and let's say some of the content that is potentially infringing, there is a chance that the Australian site could be targeted under this law," he said.
ABC/AFP
Topics: internet-culture, information-and-communication, world-politics, united-states, australia
First posted
Chief Commissioner Ken Lay defends the role of Victoria Police in the Jill Meagher search.
Julia Gillard has withdrawn from speaking engagements in New York due to illness.
Foreign Minister Bob Carr will stand in for Julia Gillard in New York to push for a seat at the UN Security Council.
Cate Blanchett has been named best female actor at this year's Helpmann Awards for live arts.
Comments (35)
Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.
ABC (Moderator):
18 Jan 2012 10:14:21am
Will you be lost without Wikipedia?
Alert moderator
DC:
18 Jan 2012 10:35:21am
We will be more lost if this unreasonable law gets up.
Alert moderator
Rhys:
18 Jan 2012 10:48:36am
Not for 24 hours. But I would be lost without it if SOPA/PIPA passes and the content industries start forcing the removal of large chunks of Wikipedia's knowledge base with frivolous Copyright claims, or forcing Wikipedia off the net permanently because of one minor problem in one article somewhere. Better a voluntary blackout now than a permanent one later.
Alert moderator
Az:
18 Jan 2012 11:33:36am
"Will you be lost without Wikipedia?"
No, but most jounros will be.
Prepare for a day of crappier than usual reportage.
Alert moderator
Chris W:
18 Jan 2012 11:39:26am
Lost? Inconvenienced for a day maybe. There are other sources of information. However, if these laws get up then the situation will quickly become dire. Ultimately, there will be no such thing as information that is unpaid for... paid to the global "rights holder" as protection money against the possibility you might infringe something they claim to "own". There will be no such thing as fair use for criticism purposes: criticise a movie using a clip to illustrate your point and you will have your site killed... and then you have to stump up to fight through court to clear your name. Don't believe it won't be abused also: company X quietly posts infringing material on a forum hosted by their competitor Y, and summarily has their competitor banned from the 'net.
It's also a blunt tool. Blocking an IP address, as the bills suggest, also kills any other site hosted on the same host. Am I to be held liable for the actions of other web site owners? Is the ABC to held responsible for the actions of others who sharing your IP address on content delivery networks? Where are our rights?
Alert moderator
Q...:
18 Jan 2012 12:28:59pm
Without doubt there are already anonymous types preparing to place a link to a Universal Pictures movie on a Warner Brothers website...
You can't control the uncontrollable.
Alert moderator
Martin:
18 Jan 2012 10:46:23am
No, I won't be lost without it, not even if they went black for a month. I don't use it. Worthy though the concept of community peer review is, I prefer to get my information from primary sources, not an online repository of what just the highly motivated/opinionated people want me to read.
Alert moderator
Lucy:
18 Jan 2012 11:20:55am
Because primary sources never have any bias of any kind.
Alert moderator
Suze:
18 Jan 2012 11:28:54am
If you had any significant experience using wikipedia you would realise that articles with an outright bias are in a minority and that sensible people are always going to double-check and stupid people will fall for bias and bad arguments regardless of where they read it.
You would also realise that wikipedia fucntions very well for many people as an introduction to a topic and a direction to the most relevant primary sources, that you value so much.
By the way, plenty of the primary sources you prefer are biased themselves and are often the result of the work of higly motivated and opinionated people. Why is this more acceptable to you than people citing such sources in a central repository? Somehow this is only wrong when it's on wikipedia?
Alert moderator
Martin:
18 Jan 2012 12:47:17pm
No, it's not wrong, just a judgement call for me (and the original question was would it affect _me_). I find from my personal experience, for me, for what I work on, for what I'm actually paid to do, I find _my_ time better spent away from Wikipedia. For millions of others it's fine for them. You do your own analysis and you make your informed decision. Don't ever trust a single source.
Alert moderator
daniel:
18 Jan 2012 5:02:02pm
Wikipedia may not be 'peer reviewed', but it does have an enormous range of editors that contribute on a wide range of topics. This does lend it a certain amount of credibility. It's scope represents the real power of an open and free internet.
I doubt anyone would argue Wikipedia represents an authority on its articles. It's an encyclopedia, not a journal. It does however, provide a fantastic introduction on its topics. As mentioned, the vast majority of its articles are simply not biased.
No one 'wants you to read' anything on Wikipedia, any more than the authors in a library want you to read their books. It's information, to be shared and consumed as you see fit.
When you want to know what are the birds of French Polynesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_of_French_Polynesia), you can get that information in mere seconds.
No other resource in our history has provided such power.
Alert moderator
Bob:
18 Jan 2012 10:47:11am
The bill has not 'won the backing' of Hollywood, the music inustry, etc.
The bill was written by Hollywood, the music inustry, etc.
They want to protect their business model by turning the internet into pay-TV, rather than facing the reality that the internet destroys their business model by enabling us to buy content directly from artists.
Alert moderator
Independent Aussie:
18 Jan 2012 11:05:57am
I'd rather like to know if/why aussie orgs are supporting SOPA, have heard of at least one (Aust Med Council) ...
Alert moderator
Brian:
18 Jan 2012 11:11:14am
This isn't about Wikipedia, it's about stopping a stupid idea being written into law. What the dying movie and music distribution industries are asking for is the right to shut down any ISP and any website on the mere allegation that they are hosting copyright material. They do not need to supply proof. They are not asking to take down just the offending material. They are not going after the people who posted the alleged copyright material. They are saying, one of your customers stole something from us, shut down Google, YouTube, Yahoo, Facebook etc until we get it back and/or we go to court. It's breathtakingly stupid and hopefully so disproportionate that that even politicians can understand that it up-ends both justice and common law.
Alert moderator
Herr Kaleun:
18 Jan 2012 12:02:42pm
"They are saying, one of your customers stole something from us, shut down Google, YouTube, Yahoo, Facebook etc until we get it back and/or we go to court. "
That's a bit hyperbolic. Do you really think they'd go that far?
Alert moderator
Q...:
18 Jan 2012 12:50:06pm
One of the main points is that the legislation apparently allows for that.
Don't think for a second that these utterly self interested individuals and corporations who will gain power through this legislation will hesitate to use it to the greatest extent permissible.
Keep in mind that some of these same organisations, using existing Intellectual Property laws, allow the deaths of some of the poorest people on the planet by deliberately withhold disease cures/treatements for their own financial gain.
Alert moderator
Brian:
18 Jan 2012 1:25:45pm
It's not hyperbole, it's what they're asking for.
Hopefully any legislation that was passed might require proof and punish the offenders, but that's not what they're asking for.
And remember, they already tried it on here, trying to close iiNet because they reckoned their users were sharing copyright media. Imagine even suggesting we close all Westfields nation-wide because a petty thief was somewhere in your local mall if you don't understand how stupid this legislation is.
Alert moderator
Lucy:
18 Jan 2012 11:18:34am
No I won't, and it is not suposed to make us feel 'lost without it' - it is merely to raise awareness of the situation so that Americans will start calling senators and members of congress.
Alert moderator
michael:
18 Jan 2012 11:29:45am
Not for a day, but if this draconian movie mogul law gets up then we will be subject to some serious censorship issues - what if Google is taken down or other legitimate web sites with content that is really out of their control? How far away are we from the Great Wall of Fox?
If ISP's become responsible for user actions they are going to need a lot more staff to police this and of course costs to us, the consumer, will rise.
The real issue here is twofold:
1) Movies should be made available 'on release' everywhere (using all vehicles) globally so there's no big gap between a USA release and an Australian one. Movies should be available in the cinema, pay-TV, DVD hire and purchase all at the same time (which would maximise the revenue for sure but isn't in the cinema owners interests)
2) The price of a cinema ticket has risen above true value, people want to watch on their home Plasma rather than pay a huge price to visit the cinema. If a newly released movie was available on pay-per-view, one night viewing, for a reasonable sum then *most of this piracy would vanish overnight*
In short; it's *their business model that needs to change* - trying to hold onto their old paradigm by invoking laws is not the real solution.
Alert moderator
Az:
18 Jan 2012 11:35:12am
Please pass SOPA...
A US free internet will be a wonderful thing.
Alert moderator
Kocsonya:
18 Jan 2012 2:32:49pm
"Please pass SOPA... A US free internet will be a wonderful thing."
I hope you are aware that Australia follows the US like a brainless lamb. If it passes there, it will be introduced here soon too (actually there are some clauses of IP law "harmonisation", sorry, harmoniZation, in the FTA) . Senator Conroy and the ACMA together with the various "intellectual property" lobby groups would throw a wild orgy if it went through. Just look at ACTA, which we signed.
For countries which would not, on their own, come up with such an idea the US applies economic pressure on them to "harmonise" local copyright and patent laws with the US versions. WIPO is pretty much an international shop-front for the US copyright and patent industry.
The situation won't really change until politicians start to work for the people and not for the bribes they receive from the industry groups. Unfortunately, I don't believe in the tooth fairy either.
Alert moderator
Sukebe:
18 Jan 2012 11:38:00am
Trust the Yanks to want to control everything we read. They are no different from China, Iran and Malaysia. They want us all following the US line without any discussion or questioning. Orwell's 1984 was about 50 years too early, he should have called it 2034
Alert moderator
liz:
18 Jan 2012 11:38:05am
Cue hundreds of comments from people who don't use wikipedia and think this makes them special and clever who will then go away thinking we're all secretly very impressed by their sheer audacity and patting themselves on the back for being so morally superior to everyone.
Alert moderator
Andrew:
18 Jan 2012 12:04:44pm
I know that this is a bit tangential to the main discussion, but while Wikipedia is a useful research tool at times, it's not the only research source out there. There's a lot out there that's better.
As someone who works in the tertiary education sector I think it's a bit sad that Jimmy Wales should target students in his statement. While he's got their attention, it might be a good idea for him to tell them that most tertiary educators (like myself) mark down and sometimes fail students who use the thing.
Wikipedia is good Jimmy... but it's not that good.
Alert moderator
daniel:
18 Jan 2012 5:09:14pm
While 'Wikipedia' may not only be the only research tool out there, it is the only decent free one.
The amount of times I've attempted to access an online journal article, only to be asked to fork out a small fortune for the privilege is astounding.
There's a huge push for open-sourced journals, but also considerable pressure to maintain the status-quo.
Wikipedia proves the potential of free and open information.
Alert moderator
rjamesd:
18 Jan 2012 12:16:39pm
The masters of the world hate the internet. The internet provides for a free exchange of information and ideas and is not under the control of the corporations. The Corporations have long been seeking ways to control the internet and these laws are just the next step, not the final one. These laws are not just an attack on Wikipedia, they are an attack on all internet users who seek content from alternate (non corporate)providers
Alert moderator
rossc:
18 Jan 2012 12:27:33pm
Even for a day!
Alert moderator
Eddie:
18 Jan 2012 1:05:14pm
If there's one thing that Wikileaks taught the powers that be, it's that they needed to find a way to censor the internet.
Alert moderator
cc:
18 Jan 2012 1:26:14pm
Does anyone really care? Wikipedia is a fairly poor source of generalist information at best.
In fact, turn off the Internet and let's see if the Free World comes crumbling down. I'm pretty sure we were doing fine without it not much more than a decade ago.
The Internet has made students lazy and unscholarly, distorted our sexual appetites through on-tap pornography, created a devastating way to bully and harass others, dumbed down our grammar and facilitated socially acceptable theft. Seriously, what is useful on the internet would be less than 0.0001% of its entirety.
I, for one, am in favour of Governments cleaning up this vile expression of humanity.
Alert moderator
Rory:
18 Jan 2012 2:05:22pm
SOPA would change the way Internet providers provide.
They would have to be accountable for the content they passed on to you.
So they would keep detailed records of where you clicked, and surfed.
They would allow any posts or content to be visible until it had been approved,
a timely and costly venture.
And a new "Undernet" of Peer to Peer, and invisble Servers would slowly evolve, and bypass all this legality anyway.
Alert moderator
Fejjie:
18 Jan 2012 2:14:09pm
Personally I don't use Wikipedia for anything serious, but it is great to get some quick and (generally accurate) information about a topic/thing. So not much impact for me.
The law they are protesting does sound pretty ludicrous, did they sue VHS makers when people copied tapes in the past, no.
The ISPs are just tools that allow people to do many things if they choose to use it to do something illegal the responsibility lies with the user.
Alert moderator
Glenn:
18 Jan 2012 2:33:51pm
I am of the view that copyright infringement costs are way overblown. "America's Institute of Policy Innovation estimates copyright theft costs around $58 billion in America every year" seems like a crock to me. Just because one downloads music for free it doesn't mean that one would have bought that music, so nothing is lost. But if I listen to some "free" music by an artrist it might introduce me to that artist and I might spend some real $s on one of their gigs or buy some music. Swings and roundabouts.
Alert moderator
Fejjie:
18 Jan 2012 3:26:24pm
Totally agree with your point Glenn.
I might watch a show on TV for free but wouldn't pay for it.
So many people downloading for free would simply do without if it cost monry, either way the studio/artist gets nothing.
My personal experience - watched a downloaded copy of the first season of 'The Wire' a couple of years ago liked it so much I went out and bought the complete series box set.
Alert moderator
Billy Bob:
18 Jan 2012 4:22:20pm
To anyone who happens to be in favour of the SOPA bill, do some research on it. Even just a little bit of light reading will show that it is much more dangerous than you'd think!
As has already been said - imagine a shopping centre filled with thousands of people, with only one solitary person stealing an item from one of the many shops. Lets say they get the item and get out of the centre scot-free... using this example, the ENTIRE shopping centre would be closed indefinitely until the perpetrator is found and the item returned, and with the ease of anonymity over the internet, finding them could well be impossible meaning that shopping centre will be closed forever. This could happen to YouTube, Google, Facebook, and any other website currently in use on the internet.
Alert moderator
R U Serious:
18 Jan 2012 5:01:17pm
Wikipedia is free to access any time. It's the pricing that's the cause of the piracy problem. We watch and listen to plenty of copyrighted content on free to air TV and radio, and pay indirectly with our support of the advertisers - except in the case of the ABC where we pay with taxes. The dumb entertainment industry needs to get sponsors and advertisers to pay an appropriate click charge eqivalent to what commercial TV and radio stations charge advertisers to air a program. The days of renting at the DVD store are over and that pricing structure is extinct. We don't buy encyclopaedias from door to door salesmen any more.
Alert moderator
Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.