Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Ideas

Suggestion
Instead of waiting for Congress to draft yet another bad law, why don't we come up with a list of suggestions. Wikipedia has deep experience dealing with problems like copyright violations, sock puppetry, anonymous proxies, and disruptive community members. We can bring that experience to bear against problems such as online piracy, counterfeiting, fraud, and cybercrime. Jehochman Talk 01:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's only one suggestion that has any merit: the creation of a Wikimedia PAC. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel differently at a later date, please consider suggestions toward crafting legislation that makes sense. You are someone who could help lawmakers understand the consequences of what was originally drafted, and offer up what works in the "real world." Petersontinam (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Money is the only thing lawmakers understand. And when you spend money on a PAC to elect members of this community, then you will be able to make a real difference. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Past evidence indicates that both moral and physical force can also comprehensible when effectively used. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The left–right politics espoused by the establishment has run its course and is no longer relevant in the 21st century. Talk to anyone you know under 30 and they will acknowledge that fact.  It's time to change politics as we know it for good and the best way to do that is to fund a PAC.  Wikimedia offers evidence-based decision making based on information available to everyone. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a former politician (on a much smaller scale; councilmember) I understand how you feel. Frustration over the powerful "big boys" on our council making all the decisions (before the public meetings) soured me forever. It felt fruitless to fight. Trying to address anything at the State level was a nightmare. Although it might be thought of as pollyanna visions on my part, I'm going to take the Office of Science and Technology at their word about looking for input. I even went ahead and tried to contact them to look our way for that input. Yeah, you could say I'm living a fantasy here, but someone will look. It's also up to the powers-that-be at Wikipedia to formally put forth solutions after the blackout...it's the right thing to do. Petersontinam (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is, no single government or private industry could create Wikipedia, and they had plenty of time and resources to do so. The success of Wikipedia means something, and those results can be translated into people power, people armed with information to make good decisions.  This is the essence of democracy.  Wikipedia supports an informed electorate.  Can the mainstream media say the same thing? Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the mainstream media does not demonstrate the same thing at all. I guess that's why I see Wikipedia with the power to make actual changes by sharing information that is critical to laws that affect everyone. I meant it when I said I was dumbfounded by the intelligence here...it truly blows my mind. I could only hope to have the tiniest fraction of knowledge that the average person here has. What I was trying to say is that if that knowledge level that can scope a Bill and in 5 minutes know the repercussions...could also point lawmakers in the right direction...that would be a good thing. Most regular folks can't look at Bill language without feeling dizzy. Wikipedia members are not only able to read it, they are able to know what is wrong, unrealistic, and plain crazy about the legislation. That will end up being the bottom line in the near future...what is going to replace SOPA/PROTECTIP and did anyone do anything to make it not be a pile of poop. Because some type of legislation is going to come 'round again. Petersontinam (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a primitive, distributed intelligence composed of individual minds working randomly together to produce an encyclopedia. You are trying to control it, and you will, ultimately fail.  It is counterintuitive, but we cannot point lawmakers in any direction; however, we can invite lawmakers to become Wikipedians and they can contribute to the knowledge base.  That's really where the power resides.  It's not in the influence or persuasion over others, but in the direct and personal participation by individuals in their relationship with the site.  Each person is a node in this overarching structure. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, I truly don't understand you telling me that I am trying to control Wikipedia by asking people if they have suggestions for new legislation. I don't know what you want. I had no "persuasive" intention except to, obviously in a very simple-minded way, ask if there were good ideas for better laws from people who actually know and understand how these laws detrimentally affect their lives. I don't have what it takes to fence with you on this. If you don't want to participate, OK. But please stop trying to make me feel bad about wanting to. I have no malicious intent here. You are making me feel pretty crappy. Petersontinam (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, if we are going to protest against legislation, we ought to recommend better approaches. It is silly to protest without suggesting a better path. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Truth
About say, 50% of what has been written is mostly anti-sopa propaganda. I know that my responses are not anti-sopa... but I combine my view of how the law actually works (in my perspective) with improvements to those.

If we consider the core issues that SOPA tries to correct are: The DMCA Safe Harbour is abused with the "Blind Eye Loophole" The difficulty in protecting american copyright overseas

And build up from there you'll discover that site blocking is one of the LEAST INVASIVE methods.

Consider, mandated "internet registration". To make a website you'd have to register with the government... this would actually be more effective as the government could whitelist instead of blacklist. This could be extended to citizens, and unique internet identifiers would be used for all content posted (so you can't go to the library to upload something illegal).

So if we admit that we really have no influence over foreign websites but want to enforce copyright law, what can we honestly do?

The other issue of addressing the "blind eye loophole" means that we need the webmaster to be proactive in preventing piracy... Sites like thepiratebay ignore what their users are doing so they can't be held accountable for not doing anything to stop it. How to make this as least painful for web companies while not allowing "Okay, been a week everyone, back up all threads cause I have to flush them." is a rather delicate balance.

Honestly SUGGEST improvements, don't just claim it'll hurt the internet... try to find ways to make it work. After all, it isn't half as bad as people make it out to be, and those part that can allow potential abuse can be addressed. Just because you have a few small complaints doesn't mean that the whole idea is bad... even mandating a civilian committee to decide what can and cannot be blocked would seem to address MANY of the concerns.

And above all, please take a moment to actually think about what Wikipedia is saying. They can censor their webpage, but filtering out a few urls is excessively costly? There is an ulterior motive but I'm not exactly certain what it is... I think they're mostly scared about lawsuits over libel... but if that's true wouldn't this be a good thing? (I mean, wikipedia shouldn't be a site for rumours). And with them talking back to the FBI over a DMCA Takedown request, I'd say they have some pretty good lawyers and don't fear the government... idk... it's not a conspiracy... more like they're using us. 173.171.224.117 (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)