Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act/Archive 2

Not so much POV as V

This article presents a number of viewpoints, but very little in the way of objective analysis. In essence, this whole article should be re-titled Stop Online Piracy Act reactions and the original article re-written. The USA PATRIOT Act article is an excellent guideline to be used, here. There is a single section about the controversy (which is a much larger controversy than is associated with this bill) and then a link to Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act.

I'd also think that this act in particular could use sections about what previous acts it modifies or was influenced by; the ongoing erosion of common carrier protections on the Internet and so forth. These are all useful pieces of historical context, and need not be presented with respect to any subset of viewpoints. -Miskaton (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the parallel to the Patriot Act, which may be useful. The article seems to have been through a number of hands since I last looked, so right now I am not sure about your other comments, tho I may come back to this later. Elinruby (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note: I'm kind of concerned about the quality of this edit, but I'm not 100% certain it should be removed. Anyone else want to chime in? -Miskaton (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it says: "This allows the U.S. to ban the websites they want, also is another proof of encroachment on freedom of information. Mr. Rockefeller promotes" -- which is unsourced at a minimum. If it's still there in that state I'll take it out. This is in fact a concern some people have expressed but it needs attribution and the are probably more careful wordings out there. Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a gentle warning to the newbie. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

incorrect statement removed

"The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.(ref name="pcworld")"

Problems with this language:

1. It equates different actions and penalties under different sections of the act.
2. The liability for damages part is a quote from the bill, and multiple respectable opinions say that since reporting a website as infringing requires a declaration of a good faith belief that the site infringes, the burden would be on the website to prove that the report was made knowing otherwise.
I have asked at the Law portal about this language specifically as well as about the similar problem with the DMCA provisions. Let's see if that gets an answer.

In the meantime this statement, which appears inaccurate and is contradicted in the Business Concerns subsection, does not belong in the lead.

The rest of the edits to the lead undo a lot of small changes made in the name of accuracy and readability but in the name of not starting an edit war over *readability* I will leave them for now, as the rest of the text inserted by Xenephrenic is confusing and inaccurate but not actually *wrong* as this seems to be. At some point I would like to come back to them but the article has bigger problems. Elinruby (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "Yeah, it's sourced to a reliable source, but it's wrong" concern noted above, the source says:

If a copyright holder knowingly misrepresents that a site is dedicated to infringement, or if a respondent to an infringement claim knowingly misrepresents that a site is not dedicated to infringement, they can be liable for damages, including court costs and attorneys' fees.

Section 104 of SOPA gives legal immunity to any service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for voluntarily taking action against websites dedicated to infringement.

I believe the text in our article accurately conveys information in our source (concern #1 above). As for multiple opposing sources haaving concerns about the ramifications, that doesn't make our text any less accurate. If there is a reliable source stating that our information is incorrect, then there would be sufficient reason to correct or remove our entry. As an aside, the source citation was accidently removed with the text; I've restored that as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're citing an information technology journalist about a legal controversy. For a guy who writes half a dozen stories a day he works in good faith and probably relied on the bill text. But he is no longer the best source on the topic; people with more time to look at it have said no. I'll go find one that is better in a moment.

Yes, and the bit you are citing PCWorld for above is from section 103. This one says that if I am a web host and I see I host a web site that infringes on copyright, the website holder can't sue me for any breach of contract I may have had with him. The section 103 section says that reporting a website as infringing (this would be the copyright holder not the web host) when you know it is not creates liability. However, reporting the site as infringing requires that you say you have a good faith belief that it does, so it's like an IF statement that the application logic never gets to. If you have a good faith belief that something is infringing then you are not knowingly misreporting it. I have asked for expert opinion on this so please do not simply revert my edits saying "you're wrong." (Personal attack removed) Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not citing a journalist about a controversy, I am citing the PC World source about the content of the bill. You are confusing "bill content" with concerns about that content, or the ramifications of that content if it is implemented, according to experts. Valid stuff, for sure, but not in that section. There are other sources that give the same content summary; would you like those added, or are you going to provide a reliable source that gives a different content description? (Personal attack removed) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(Remainder of discussion not concerning article improvement moved to editor's talk page for continuation. -Xenophrenic)

my answer disagreeing with this assessment has been removed. Elinruby (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it has not. I would, however, be interested in hearing your disagreement. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My answer *was* removed and I am now in the wierd position of arguing about what it said. But. Xenophrenic has correctly stated elsewhere I wrongly relied on his description of his own actions; the content that specifically dealt with the sections of the bill was copied, not moved. Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No text about article improvement has been removed. Only inappropriate comments have been moved from here to your talk page, in case you wished to further discuss them. This was your last edit here, and the status of the discussion before anything was refactored, if you need to refer to it. Please keep discussion here about article improvement, and refrain from commenting about editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I added three or four correctly attributed opinions from lawyers, which have now been removed. I am too busy to look for a diff so I will ask. Did you do this and if so why? Meanwhile, the incorrect statement is still in the lead confusing people. Bah. Walking away in disgust and despair Elinruby (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait they are actually still there, just way way down the page in an irrelevant section. Which of course most people won't get to as they'll just skim the incorrect statements higher up. These are not just "business concerns"; they affect THE ENTIRE INTERNET. Let me ask again: did you do this and if so why? And why would you not correct the errors of fact in the content section? You realize it now contradicts the business and legal concerns section? Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I see lots of stuff in the sections about "Business and legal concern"; can you let us in on exactly which content we are discussing? Are you saying those expressed concerns should be under one of the other concerns headings? As for the content section, I'd like to make the same request: can you let us in on exactly which content we are discussing? As well as the sources showing that we have an "error of fact" in the content section. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, a challenge to my ability to believe in the good faith of others. We are discussing the text from the content section quoted in the very first paragraph of this section. That text is in error for the reasons spelled out in subsequent paragraphs and in the part of my explanation that you moved to my talk page. For some reason. As for "Business and legal concerns", I asked a question. Did you move quotes from law professors there? If the answer is no, then please say so and refrain from further sarcasm. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Copied" to your talk page, you mean. The "explanations" in the above text -- actually concerns raised by others about the content -- don't indicate that the present text conveying the content doesn't actually convey the content. They instead explain ramifications of the content as it presently exists. And I don't see the sarcasm. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Parse error+++Out of Cheese Error+++Redo from Start+++++ Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

system dump 02 b3 a0 ff:ff:ff boolean expected, error found near ", buffer overflow, stack error, unable to execute I don't see the sarcasm Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

streaming provisions

Somebody put this discussion in the section about the effect of DNS, which makes the lawyer who is quoted appear at first glance to be discussing this. I could almost see applying the first paragraph of the remarks more broadly since the scope is general, but in that case it should be in a summary section, not a detail section on a different topic. He was not taking about DNS. As a stopgap I am going to put this back into its own section to see f somebody would like to explain why they moved the material. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

scratch the comment about general scope, now that I re-read it -- I believe that distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is specific to the streaming section Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

copyprotected -->copyrighted

who is changing this back? I just noticed an edit by RJaguar3 that makes the change again, with the edit summary "source seems to say that felony streaming provision applies to all copyrighted works, not just those that are copy protected (which would describe stuff like CSS, HDCP, etc". I agree and am fairly certain I had already made that change. If any one does NOT agree, please discuss before reverting. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

moved streaming out of business concerns; these provisions affect individual users more than business

I put it in Free speech but am open to other suggestions about where to discuss the effect on dancing cats and budding cover musicians. Maybe there should be a consumer issues section, as I've seen mention of an effect on prices. Constructive suggestions welcome. Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

weasel -- repeated insertion of euphemism in lead and content section

Just documenting why I put the tag there. I've re-written these sections more than once.

I have reverted an edit by a brand-new IP account (83.233.151.203) that removed the tag with no explanation. Open to discussion if someone thinks it should not be there, however. I'd like to see the above concern addressed here before we start reverting.... Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then could you document why, here in this section, so we may review your concerns? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Boing Boing a reliable source for its co-editor's opinion on SOPA?

I have made a post asking the question at the Reliable Source notice board. The article has changed in the past few days and the issue is mostly academic, but editors on this page may wish to comment. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

November 28 edits

Returned wording from cited sources. Copy editing and edits for NPOV. Moved "cost jobs" (cited to this) from the lead to here. An opinion piece that says Bloom Studios may lose jobs; can we find a source that covers the topic of potential job loss, rather than an anecdotal example? Moved Wikimedia.org here from the "Opposition" section after an editor marked it as needing a citation; the only source given so far is a blog post that doesn't even mention this bill specifically (but does make vague references to a "Blacklist Bill"). Removed sentence stating, "A Mastercard representative testified at the Nov 16 hearing in favor of the bill", cited to a piece written before the hearing. There should be plenty of post-hearing sources that can confirm what their stance was. Removed McCullagh's speculation about potential concerns raised by Microsoft, AT&T, et al, -- the only confirmed and relevant part is redundant to the previous content. Shortened ref names and standardized headers. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why France and the UK have no "First Amendment" (the Brito quote)

Brito makes it sound as if France and the UK are some kind of repressive banana republics without any protection of freedom of speech, therefore I find the statement misleading.

First of all, the UK is a special case as it doesn't have a written constitution, but rather a voluminous corpus of laws and precedents.

Secondly, both the UK and France are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, which does protect freedom of speech, see Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

And the Convention is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights. So while France and the UK do not have a "First Amendment" they do guarantee the rights contained within "the First", albeit in a phrasing consistent with the 20th, rather than the 18th century.

Mojowiha (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple question? Why pick on England and France. Do the Zionist Jews have a First Amendment? This statement will be cenored by WIKIPEDIA as anti-semetic. So who are the real censors? WIKIPEDIA complains about SOPA. Try writing 1 creditable article on human rights abuse by Zionist jews and WIKIPEDIA will censor it or mark it anti-semetic. WIKIPEDIA should clean it's own house first. SOPA is a hypothetical censor of the future. WIKIPEDIA Zionist cenoring is a daily reality at this place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.7.68.142 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the troll - Mojowiha, what's being quoted is one person's opinion. The article doesn't say he's correct; just that he said it. I'm removing the "dubious" tag. Yaron K. (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well Yaron, isn't the "dubious" tag used for dubious content, even when cited correctly? I really can't see what the Brito quote brings to the article. At least there must be others citing such free speech concerns in a bit less ridiculous context (i.e. using some more credible examples). Is Brito a particularly noteworthy source/person? Should we include such ridiculous examples "unfiltered" (that is without qualifications) in Wikipedia, just because they are out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojowiha (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification changes sought

"The Chinese DNS filters simply drop the request, making it look like the site is offline or out of business." -- Article

This is unclear. Is there a deliberate attempt to return a web page declaring that a website is down or out of business, or does the dropped request simply result in a http error? This distinction is important, because one interpretation is censorship, and the other alleges China of manipulation. "...making it look like the site..." should possibly be changed to "...the result of which is the appearance that a site..." Edit: --86.158.102.158 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)