More news about wikipedia sopa

Using a bing search...
More news about wikipedia sopa
More that 100 stories ...

EDIT:
Google to Join Wednesday Protest Against SOPA
http://socialbarrel.com/google-to-join-wednesday-protest-against-sopa/30569/

It's 1:25 PM here in Malaysia-the entire English Wikipedia site is blocked. The sites of other languages aren't, though.

[Malware Removal Specialist]

CH is showing support as well.

If you disable Javascript for Wikipedia it still works.

[Malware Removal Specialist]

Yea, many of the sites are still navigable. As long as what is being done makes people think (and hopefully act) then the message will be a success.

Good link. http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa

Yea, many of the sites are still navigable. As long as what is being done makes people think (and hopefully act) then the message will be a success.

Good link. http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa

I just signed...

Evil,Very easy to comprehend explanation for those that might be wondering what this is all about.truenorth

Forbes:
An Interview With Rep. Jared Polis: Why We Need To Stop SOPA
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/18/an-interview-with-rep-jared-polis-why-we-need-to-stop-sopa/

here is the blurb being served from thedailywtf.com.

I get the feeling this is supposed to be ironic or sarcasm. (ban HTTP and go back to GOPHER?)

Support The Daily *censored* in Supporting the Support SOPA Movement

It’s January 18, 2012 and, while most of the internet has decided to blackout their sites in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), we’re taking an opposite stance and are whiting-out The Daily *censored* in support of SOPA supporters.

If there’s one thing that SOPA proponents like myself and SOPA opponents can agree on, it’s that PROTECT-IP and the Stop Online Piracy Act have little to do with protecting intellectual property and stopping online piracy.

After all, those who choose to steal creative works like the “I Have a Dream” speech from artists like Martin Luther King Jr. can already be sued and prosecuted under existing United States copyright laws. IP thieves living overseas can already be extradited to face justice in our federal courts. And the Department of Homeland Security can already arbitrarily seize domain names that fit its arbitrary standard of violating national something-or-other.

While these laws will make such acts more illegal (and therefore reduce infringement), they’re doing something much, much more important: helping dismantle DNS and the internet as we know it. And that’s something that we firmly support and can stand by.

You see, back in the day, if you wanted to get online and access electronically-stored information like digitized photographs, electronic bulletin boards, and informational databanks, there was only one thing you needed: a telephone number. You’d simply fire up your favorite telecommunications program (mine was Telix), have it dial that phone number, and after a refreshing symphony of beeps and hisses, you were online.

Each phone number transported you to a quaint, peaceful community that was almost entirely self-sufficient. There was no “hyperlinking” between systems: you simply wrote down the phone number, signed-off of the current system, and then dialed into the new system. And let me tell you, there are few experiences in life that can parallel the utter bliss of discovering a new phone number and a new electronic resource.

And then the Information Superhighway – and its tightly integrated Domain Name System – came along, decimating these peaceful, independent communities. The bulletin boards of old were ground up and churned in the giant “dot com” machine, leaving an interconnected web of domain names. There’s no more “going online” – you’re already online – and if you want to access an electronic resource, you can use a “domain name” like TheDailyWTF.com.

Domain names are highly confusing in that they not only describe what the electronic resource is, but where it is as well. Nothing else in the world works like this for obvious reasons. Could you imagine the complete confusion in day-to-day things like getting a phone number? Is that “jenny eighty-six dot com” or “jenny eighty-six dot net”? We would be in complete chaos.

SOPA and PROTECT-IP offer hope in returning to the golden age of telecommunications, and to the days before the Information Superhighway polluted the online culture with this domain name nonsense. Let the Domain Name System a natural death and prepare yourself for the Internet Protocol Number (IPN) renaissance. All you need to do is start a notebook that lists electronic resource names and their corresponding IPN. And let the first entry in your notebook be

    The Daily *censored*      74.50.110.120

We can only hope that our legislators introduce common sense guidelines to ban HTTP (and HTML/JavaScript) as well so we can all return to the more sensible GOPHER standard.

Personally, I'm neither for or against it. I can't possibly be expected to have an informed opinion without reading the bill itself. Though a lot of people don't seem to have an issue with that, and just accept blindly the transliterations put forth by people on either side, despite the fact that such "translations" could easily be clouded by their own personal agendas.

[Moderator]

Here Ya Go...

It's 72 pages so grab the Adult Beverage of your choice...

Here Ya Go...

It's 72 pages so grab the Adult Beverage of your choice...

I know it's long. That's why I haven't read it;I don't have time to go throuingh the bills, so the only way to know what they are about would be to read somebody else's "breakdown" it; and I'm not about to base my standpoint on a few possibly biassed cliff's notes/translations of what it says, since any such translation will easily be coloured by the "translators" agenda, and most of the time they aren't lawyers so they could hardly be expected to understand the legal boilerplate and often bring non-existent meaning to the boilerplate legalese you see all over the place.

Since I don't have the time to read the bills, I prefer to have no opinion at all rather than a uninformed one. That isn't to say that I trust the senators to make the right decision (assuming there is one), just that since I haven't read and interpreted the actual content myself, I don't know where I would stand on the issue. And I'd rather have my own opinion than somebody else's (which is pretty much what you would have if you "pick a side" based on a single persons transliterations). I might browse it idly though, come to think of it.

EDIT:
Also, and possibly equally important, since in the long run what I think about the bill and it's contents is redundant and won't matter, it seems wasteful to read that much content just to form one, especially since the subject doesn't interest me. I have no doubt it would affect me but whether I form an opinion now or then isn't going to change that effect. I also suspect that since I'm not in the U.S, much of the effects won't be felt. (the bill can't compel Canadian ISPs to block access to anything).

Obama Kills SOPA.

Obama Kills SOPA.

See, he is some use after all!

[Malware Removal Specialist]

Obama Kills SOPA.

He didn't actually kill it...

Click > Obama comes out against current SOPA and PIPA legislation, but stops short of killing it

evilfantasy, mass-media says he killed it.
Technically, Congress can overrule him.  If they have a large majority.

This is the headline others are repeating:

Obama Says So Long SOPA, Killing Controversial Internet Piracy Legislation
Over a dozen sites copy that headline. Here is a recent one:
http://theamericanaftermathfaction.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/

[Malware Removal Specialist]

Killed it in it's current form. I think "on hold" is more on target.

SOPA has been delayed, for now. The House has agreed to revisit the issue next month, but they now know the White House will veto any bill that’s not more narrowly focused.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/

I applaud the President for not letting it through as it is now.

Killed it in it's current form. I think "on hold" is more on target.
....
I applaud the President for not letting it through as it is now.

I would agree.
Meanwhile, we may need to find another planet
-  where we can live in freedom.

Just joking. Kinda.

www.spaceandscience.co.uk was down from 10am until 10pm GMT Thu... as some know already. Just doing my bit.   


And to add: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16628143

Really it is somewhat hard to believe that there is so much opposition to these (PIPA/SOPA ) bills when two of the foremost proponents Rupert Murdoch (the scion of the newspaper industry and staunch advocate and upholder of moral values in  the media) and Chris Dodd ex U.S. Senator and now head of the MPAA( who if memory serves was involved while a Senator in issues of million dollar contributions from big business] are amongst the most vocal supporters of this initiative.  If you cannot trust them to act with the best interests of the world wide growth and access to the internet who CAN you trust. And surely it is a benefit to all us lesser nations that the U.S. sees it's responsibility to ensure that we ALL are under the umbrella of legislation passed in it's Congress that reaches beyond it's borders to help us all along the path of righteousness and good. truenorth

If you want truth, watch/listen to the BBC... they have no choice. We make sure of that. Murdock and all his cronies can (switches to nice talk). Get away and disappear, suck my lemon and take it when the world shoves there fist up his corporations evacuation utility.   
This is the age of the internet and guess what we are in control NOT them!
I feel I went on if I did sorry...

[Moderator]

Well put...

I saw right thru Murdoch's push for this...not for anti-piracy or whatever but for sheer greed...Royalties for every printed word in his vast playground...what a poser...

Over 8 million people did searches yesterday for their congress representatives and ay latest tally over 7.2 million petition signatures were logged online.

Megaupload  was shutdown, apparently.

Megaupload  was shutdown, apparently.

Looks like it just happened.

Feds storm, shut down popular file-sharing site …
2 hours ago
Jan 19, 2012 · Federal prosecutors in Virginia have shut down one of the world s largest file-sharing sites, Megaupload.com, and charged its founder and others …

http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_19776042

..."vast majority of Mega's Internet traffic is legitimate, and we are here to stay. If the content industry would like to take advantage of our popularity, we are happy to enter into a dialogue. We have some good ideas. Please get in touch," the statement said.

So it would seem the SOPA was not needed in this instance. Is Pirate Bay next?

Is Pirate Bay next?

I would have expected that to be their first target, myself.

[Moderator]

The thugs at ANON have already responded taking down Justice Dept. RIAA and some major media label sites...

[Malware Removal Specialist]

The thugs at ANON have already responded taking down Justice Dept. RIAA and some major media label sites...

Many others also including the FBI.

http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-kills-department-of-justice-site-in-megaupload-revenge-strike/

[Moderator]

If you want truth, watch/listen to the BBC... they have no choice. We make sure of that. Murdock and all his cronies can (switches to nice talk). Get away and disappear, suck my lemon and take it when the world shoves there fist up his corporations evacuation utility.   
This is the age of the internet and guess what we are in control NOT them!
I feel I went on if I did sorry...

This just in also...shows the true Gall of people like Murdoch Mulreay...
Story...

It's all messed up 

Hackers have targeted the US government and copyright organisations following the shutdown of the Megaupload file-sharing website.

The Department of Justice (DoJ), FBI and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) among others have been bombarded with internet traffic.

Web links have been been distributed which, when clicked, make the user's computer part of the attack.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16646023

From the above link:

"If you visit the webpage, and do not have Javascript disabled, you will instantly, without user interaction, begin to flood a website of Anonymous's choice with unwanted traffic, helping to perpetuate a DDoS attack," it said.

It noted that such attacks were illegal, meaning that users taking part in the action were breaking the law.

Can anybody explain this to me? Please.
By just having javascript on one might break the law just by looking at a site? Hard to believe. Is that a type?

Can you see it? You go buy a PC and next  to the logo that says "Intel Inside" there is a a waring" " Danger: the PC has javascript enabled, which may be a crime in some jurisdictions."

[Web moderator]

Hackers have targeted the US government and copyright organisations following the shutdown of the Megaupload file-sharing website.

Fair play to them. The US government and media corporations have too much to say and should keep some things to itself. For every file-sharing site taken offline, two more will go up.

Can anybody explain this to me? Please.
By just having javascript on one might break the law just by looking at a site? Hard to believe. Is that a type?

The site probably has an image or something hotlinked from the named website, and javascript is used to constantly refreshed that image, say every 200 milliseconds. That would be one way they could do it. And no, you're not breaking the law by visiting the site. It's the site itself that breaks the law.

[Moderator]

From the above link:
Can anybody explain this to me? Please.
By just having javascript on one might break the law just by looking at a site? Hard to believe. Is that a type?

Can you see it? You go buy a PC and next  to the logo that says "Intel Inside" there is a a waring" " Danger: the PC has javascript enabled, which may be a crime in some jurisdictions."

You sure have a unique way of going off on wild tangents...

                                     

From the above link:
Can anybody explain this to me? Please.
By just having javascript on one might break the law just by looking at a site? Hard to believe. Is that a type?

Can you see it? You go buy a PC and next  to the logo that says "Intel Inside" there is a a waring" " Danger: the PC has javascript enabled, which may be a crime in some jurisdictions."

Some would say your reading too much into it. Me included.

"SOPA Is Dead" is trending in the UK right now on Twitter. We got your back