Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Questions

There is widespread opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act among Wikipedia contributors, and a formal protest has been proposed on the user talk page of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales (see archive). For purposes either of outlining new policies to comply with the bill if enacted, or of seeking injunctive relief against it if passed, the Wikipedia community will need to figure out what effects the bill would have in real-world situations. We should begin by asking specific questions based on actual historical revisions of Wikipedia articles. Both due to the legal expertise involved and the continuing amendment of the bill, it may take some time to answer these, but asking the questions is the first step.

AACS encryption key controversy

The AACS encryption key controversy affected Wikipedia and many other sites; as described on its talk page there was much disagreement about whether to post the key, which was finally resolved in the affirmative. The following questions regard the November 18, 2011 version of the article.^[1]

• Does SOPA allow a court order against Wikipedia's publication of the hexadecimal key? ("09 F9 11 02 ...") For that matter, does it allow a court order against the publication of the first four bytes above in this question because you might use them to find the full key?

• Does SOPA allow a court order against Wikipedia's publication of the "free speech flag" image from the article (File:Free-speech-flag.svg) because its color values contain the key?

• Is Wikipedia a "search engine" for purposes of the law, because you can type "AACS key" in it and get the article? If so:

• Does SOPA allow a court order demanding that Wikipedia the article's link to http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1008940, the post where the key was first published?

• Does SOPA allow a court order prohibiting all links to http://www.doom9.org, the London-based^[2] site where the key was published?

• Does SOPA allow a court order prohibiting all mention of Doom9, because a canny person might try typing Doom9.org into a web browser and see what happens? (Or look it up on a foreign nameserver, etc.)

• Does SOPA allow a court order prohibiting all links to news sources that say that Doom9 published the key?

• Does a court order require Wikipedia to ensure that no new or "anonymous" (IP) user posts the number or a link to it or news articles giving information about how to find it?

• If so, is it sufficient simply to check every now and then to remove it? Or does every edit have to be checked BEFORE being visible to site visitors?

• If Wikipedia were to try such a thing, and had a class of "reviewers" doing the checking, would allowing the reviewers to view the edits already violate the court order?

• How do we discuss law and policy about the AACS key if the article's talk page has to be locked down lest people post the key?

Legal Material

"Universal v. Reimerdes" - "posting hyperlinks to other web-sites offering decryption software violated DMCA"

"The possible chilling effect of a rule permitting liability for or injunctions against Internet hyperlinks is a genuine concern. But it is not unique to the issue of linking. The constitutional law of defamation provides a highly relevant analogy. The threat of defamation suits creates the same risk of self-censorship, the same chilling effect, for the traditional press as a prohibition of linking to sites containing circumvention technology poses for web site operators. Just as the potential chilling effect of defamation suits has not utterly immunized the press from all actions for defamation, however, the potential chilling effect of DMCA liability cannot utterly immunize web site operators from all actions for disseminating circumvention technology. And the solution to the problem is the same: the adoption of a standard of culpability sufficiently high to immunize the activity, whether it is publishing a newspaper or linking, except in cases in which the conduct in question has little or no redeeming constitutional value."

"During the trial, Professor Touretzky of Carnegie Mellon University, as noted above, convincingly demonstrated that computer source and object code convey the same ideas as various other modes of expression, including spoken language descriptions of the algorithm embodied in the code ... He drew from this the conclusion that the preliminary injunction irrationally distinguished between the code, which was enjoined, and other modes of expression that convey the same idea, which were not, id., although of course he had no reason to be aware that the injunction drew that line only because that was the limit of the relief plaintiffs sought. With commendable candor, he readily admitted that the implication of his view that the spoken language and computer code versions were substantially similar was not necessarily that the preliminary injunction was too broad; rather, the logic of his position was that it was either too broad or too narrow. ... Once again, the question of a substantially broader injunction need not be addressed here, as plaintiffs have not sought broader relief."