Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-13/In focus

Discuss this story

What the RIAA fails to realize is that it really dosen't matter what you say, or even what the law says, once you've lost the respect of the population you come into contact with. The RIAA has a track record of underhanded legal practices that's so disgusting, and has been so well covered by the mainstream media, that people from the older, pre-digital generations (a group which I'm not a member of), and the members of the digital generation that consider online piracy immoral and find the arguments made by "pirates" unconvincing (a group which I most certainly am a member of), still dislike and distrust the RIAA. Cary Sherman can yell and scream and shout (and write NYT op-eds) all he wants, but he's still the head of an organization so reviled by the people he's trying to reach that his screaming and shouting and writing op-eds only serves to energize those who oppose him. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear, hear! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - we need an education plan for congress. what is wikipedia, why we're not "corporate pawns". a little briefing tour on the hill by wikipedians, perhaps as a part of wikimania, would be a start. this is a zombie issue, they will keep coming back. they may be reviled, but in a vacuum, they had a draconian bill all set for passage. we need a contingency plan for moving servers, iceland comes to mind. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - When I think about explaining Wikipedia, or really even the internet, to congresspeople, this comes to mind. What we need are a few more congresspeople who are right on the minimum age line, i.e. people who have grown up with all this technology. That and less corporate money flowing into Congress. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - good point, it is like explaining the internet to your parents. we need to show up in person, and bond with all the polysci majors in congressional offices. they understand, they need a reason to brief their member. "melting the phones" is not a solution. if they understood the widespread grassroots support of open knowledge, then the money would have less impact. more common sense talk will defeat the pro-sopa hysteria. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... broadcast media such as television and radio networks did not use their access to an audience to push their point of view ... - well, I don't know about this particular situation, but, in general, if there is anyone who thinks that (for example) Fox News does not push a particular political point of view, I have a bridge that I'm willing to sell them. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their point of view on this particular topic is what was meant; no pro-SOPA adbreaks during the Simpsons, in other words. Skomorokh 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like most of Sherman's piece, likely not really true: TV networks just didn't cover SOPA much until the 18 January protests (CNN did on air and online, and pretty fairly) and did run ads against SOPA: some opponents called the situation a "media blackout". —innotata 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is the wrong place for this question, but can anyone briefly explain to me how a passed SOPA/PIPA would affect WP's fair use status? Would anything change in that regard? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nolelover, here's your answer, from my uncompleted WMF "manufacturing consent" FAQ (disclaimer - I oppose SOPA/PIPA, etc)

Q: But Wikipedia was in mortal peril! A: Even the Wikimedia General Counsel conceded regarding site take-down, that "The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours." (see also e.g. Techdirt - Pirate Bay immune). Why do you believe the mortal peril misinformation?

Q: But laws can be misused! A: Haven't you just created a grotesque Wikipedian version of the terrorist-scaremongering "One Percent Doctrine" where "If there's a 1% chance that (a proposed law can be used against Wikipedia), we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.". Obviously, that way lies madness. So what would determine when there's a protest? Practically, when those in power start beating the war-drums.

-- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing-ish. :/ That's kinda what I had thought...well then, is there any specific part of Wikipedia that would be majorly affected - not the big broad stuff that we all hear about, but a feature of this site specific to Wikipedia that would be affected, and is in some way different from the 'other' websites out there opposing this bill? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything that would "majorly" affect Wikipedia. The proof of this is that above, General Counsel labored mightily to produce a "parade of horribles", and at best, came up with a scenario that under some possible (though not certain, but to be fair, not utterly absurd) interpretations, Wikipedia might have to remove some links. This is offensive in principle, but practically I'd say pretty minor. Especially given the way link-removal and spam-blacklisting is sometimes used as a political matter in Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the answers. :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Can Do It! (a Wikipedia article about a war time poster, also known as "Rosie the Riveter") by Binksternet has an interesting example of unintended consequences of copyrighting. According to the article, although Norman Rockwell produced a similar poster that was used to sell war bonds and appeared on the cover of the Memorial Day issue of the Saturday Evening Post, following the war, the Rockwell painting gradually sank from public memory because it was copyrighted; all of Rockwell's paintings were vigorously defended by his estate after his death. This protection resulted in the original painting gaining value—it sold for nearly $5 million in 2002. Mathew Townsend (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Techdirt's Mike Masnick complaining about other people not knowing what they are talking about when it comes to copyrights is just insane. The guy's whole shtick is to completely misrepresent what the laws and court decisions actually say to try to justify pretty much any and all copyright violations he hears about. Unfortunately a lot of the people opposing copyright enforcement are being misled by similar voices saying equally incorrect things. It's propaganda, nothing less, and a lot of well-meaning but naive Internet activists are following it to support businesses who actively and knowingly profit off of wide scale copyright violations. Wikipedia has a huge group of equally deluded folks running around talking about things they are woefully misinformed about. DreamGuy (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]