What Wikipedia Won't Tell You(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
What Wikipedia Won't Tell You
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/what-wikipedia-wont-tell-you.html?_r=2
7 comments
This was an Op-ed by Cary Sherman, head of RIAA, and not a regular NY Times staffer. His opinion, is of course, a bit skewed.
Sure, but then again, so is Google's, Wikipedia's, Reddit's, Mozilla's, The Pirate Bay's, Torrentfreak's etc...
While I do believe Mr. Sherman isn't coming from the best of places, I think that there was quite a large amount of misinformation coming from various interested parties, and I have always felt comparing SOPA with China or even censorship is nothing more than alarmist rhetoric.
While I do believe Mr. Sherman isn't coming from the best of places, I think that there was quite a large amount of misinformation coming from various interested parties, and I have always felt comparing SOPA with China or even censorship is nothing more than alarmist rhetoric.
I think it is hardly alarmist rhetoric. It's not particularly easy for sites to be shut down under the current rules, but it's far from impossible. DaJaz1.com was shut down by the ICE for over a year unjustly, with almost no recourse for the owner and not one was held accountable.
If that kind of abuse can happen now, it is most certainly not hyperbole that we will see a LOT more of these injustices happen by taking due process out of the courts and putting it into the hands of the copyright industry.
Slippery slopes usually are, except when lawyers get involved. I wish I still had the link, but I once read an extremely informative essay on the impact of lawyering on the erosion of civil liberties, especially when corporate law is involved. There is simply too much money supporting the time and effort of corporate law to the benefit of companies and detriment of citizens, civil liberties and the commons. Heck, copyright terms now extend beyond the life of the author. If that's not proof of a slippery slope, I don't know what is.
If that kind of abuse can happen now, it is most certainly not hyperbole that we will see a LOT more of these injustices happen by taking due process out of the courts and putting it into the hands of the copyright industry.
Slippery slopes usually are, except when lawyers get involved. I wish I still had the link, but I once read an extremely informative essay on the impact of lawyering on the erosion of civil liberties, especially when corporate law is involved. There is simply too much money supporting the time and effort of corporate law to the benefit of companies and detriment of citizens, civil liberties and the commons. Heck, copyright terms now extend beyond the life of the author. If that's not proof of a slippery slope, I don't know what is.
It's true that by the end of the fight, SOPA and PIPA were drifting farther from their original policy of privatized censorship, and the messages from various sites didn't adapt as much as they could have.
not to mention his occupation:
Cary H. Sherman is chief executive of the Recording
Industry Association of America, which represents
music labels.
I don't think I'm alone in thinking that this should be at the top of the page between the headline and article itself, not at the bottom.
"The following guest piece was contributed by Cary H. Sherman, who chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music labels."
"The following guest piece was contributed by Cary H. Sherman, who chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music labels."
Especially considering that the article's key complaint is that Wikipedia wasn't sufficiently up-front about editorial bias.
Seems to me the pot is calling the Pyrex vessel black.
Seems to me the pot is calling the Pyrex vessel black.
Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that opposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to help come up with constructive alternatives.
This is exactly wrong. It shouldn't be the responsibility of companies to write laws. On of the big issues that the SOPA/PIPA debacle brought to light is that if companies are allowed to write laws, they will write them in ways that fouces on benefiting them instead of the general public.
Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that proposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to stay away from law making.
This is exactly wrong. It shouldn't be the responsibility of companies to write laws. On of the big issues that the SOPA/PIPA debacle brought to light is that if companies are allowed to write laws, they will write them in ways that fouces on benefiting them instead of the general public.
Perhaps this is naïve, but I’d like to believe that the companies that proposed SOPA and PIPA will now feel some responsibility to stay away from law making.
There already are "constructive alternatives" to SOPA and PIPA. They're called Spotify, iTunes, Rdio, Netflix, Hulu, etc
They aren't "constructive" from the point of view of the encumbants, who incidentally, have the largest capital for lobbying.
If we the public can somehow band together, the total lobbying power gained is actually higher, but obviously, people dont give a shit until it personally affects them. Hence, if the encumbants can slowly tweak the law, one painless step at a time, they will win.
If we the public can somehow band together, the total lobbying power gained is actually higher, but obviously, people dont give a shit until it personally affects them. Hence, if the encumbants can slowly tweak the law, one painless step at a time, they will win.
Funny how the RIAA head complains about it being unfair when they didn't bother to invite anyone who opposed the bill during the hearings. Yet when Wikipedia does what it had to do to make a point, it is "unfair" and was "manufactured controversy"
Also, see previous whining here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/fighting-online-pi...
Really after seeing what the DoJ did to MegaUpload, it raises the question of why they need more powers seeing as how they are able to take down domains regardless.
Also, see previous whining here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/fighting-online-pi...
Really after seeing what the DoJ did to MegaUpload, it raises the question of why they need more powers seeing as how they are able to take down domains regardless.
From our point of view (Hacker News readers), it's easy to forget that these blackouts and the mainstream press that they created are the beginning and end of most people's SOPA education. I heard an intelligent and otherwise well-informed person say, "Yeah, what was this SOPA thing? It came up all of a sudden and then went away."
In that context, the focus on "censorship" is a bit misleading. It's a good way to get people's attention when you don't have the time to explain the DNS and why it's not an appropriate tool for combating piracy. Indeed, "censorship" is probably too weak a concept for the damage that SOPA would have caused to the internet, since it implies a selective redaction instead of the complete and indiscriminate excommunication of every blacklisted domain. I wouldn't call it "misinformation," but did people who knew better (so to speak) choose a "loaded and inflammatory term"? Absolutely.
It is marvelous how the victim of this "digital tsunami" can spin the case in his favor. Still, it's probably accurate to say that most people didn't understand what they were opposing.
In that context, the focus on "censorship" is a bit misleading. It's a good way to get people's attention when you don't have the time to explain the DNS and why it's not an appropriate tool for combating piracy. Indeed, "censorship" is probably too weak a concept for the damage that SOPA would have caused to the internet, since it implies a selective redaction instead of the complete and indiscriminate excommunication of every blacklisted domain. I wouldn't call it "misinformation," but did people who knew better (so to speak) choose a "loaded and inflammatory term"? Absolutely.
It is marvelous how the victim of this "digital tsunami" can spin the case in his favor. Still, it's probably accurate to say that most people didn't understand what they were opposing.
>>>“Old media” draws a line between “news” and “editorial.” Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact.
That is utter bullshit. This piece is full of such falsehoods.
That is utter bullshit. This piece is full of such falsehoods.
fair point, google promises neutrality in its search results. Wikipedia has a disclaimer about the reliability of its content.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is unacceptable BS.
Sorry I don't have more to contribute. I'm just really disgusted by this.
Sorry I don't have more to contribute. I'm just really disgusted by this.