Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act/Archive 3

POV tag, second time

Throughout the article, the POV is obvious: the amount of anti-bill content outnumbers the amount of pro-bill content by several times. Like it or not, we're bound to heed WP:NPOV, the first sentence of which notes that proportional coverage is required. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that the anti arguments vastly outnumber the pro arguments. PoV or not, you can't really give a counter argument to someone saying that jumping in front of a speeding bus is a bad idea. Working all the angles is great as long as it makes sense, otherwise wikipedia ends up beign disconnected from reality even further than it is now. Facts are facts and focusing overly on PoV would create the argument that the article is trying to be pro-sopa even though it's counterarguments number far greater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.155 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem all right. Which is why when we see a good argument for the billl we should include it. So far all I see is "jobs" though and foreign="rogue". Suggestions welcome. Elinruby (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Boycott

This may sound a little stupid but where are the cries to boycott Hollywood and the major music labels?

It would be insanely entertaining to see this bill pass and as a result of it have every single MPAA and RIAA US branch go bankrupt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.155 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's make an exception to WP:NPOV

The SOPA is a direct threat to Wikipedia's excistence and if the Act is enacted Wikipedia might be in big trouble. All of Wikipedia's editors have as such a COI with the subject. When we have a COI, it is much better to write a critical and subjective article than trying half-heartedly to make it neutral and objective. As I said, the Act is a threat to our mission and criticizing the Act in an article about is the best way to show our disapproval. PaoloNapolitano 11:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a freakin' pillar. Unless you're being sarcastic of course. I'm having trouble telling these days in these parts. Volunteer Marek  11:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Pillar or not, we all have a COI and all attempts to establish a NPOV are doomed to be half-hearted. We have to show our disapproval and this is the best way. PaoloNapolitano 11:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not "Pillar or not", it's "it's a pillar". And no, we don't all have COI, and even if we did COI does not prevent us from writing NPOV articles. And no, we don't "have to" show our disapproval (who's this "our" and this "we" anyway? why are you speaking for others?) nor, even if somehow we did, would this be "the best way".

A proposal to ignore one of the fundamental policies of the Wikipedia should be immediately dismissed. Volunteer Marek  11:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Could those who assert "The SOPA is a direct threat to Wikipedia's existence" please give a specific textual argument? Along the lines of "The bill says X, Wikipedia does Y, under interpretation Z there could be liability", etc? I see many such assertions, but it would be far more convincing if there was some text-grounded analysis to explain the perspective. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this. PaoloNapolitano 16:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, that's not text-grounded. It says bad things will happen, but does not explain why the bad things follow from the text of the bill. In specific, "simply due to an allegation that the site posted infringing content" really needs to be justified, as it's quite a serious charge (beware an ambiguity there regarding the conditions "there exists at least a single item of infringement" versus "it's full of infringement" . I'm not saying that the justification can't be done, but I'd really like to see more detail than has been supplied up to now. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the current wording of the bill, it's possible that Wikipedia might be sued because it has pictures of certain people on the articles or certain information that corporations don't want to be presented in this way, all under the banner of copyrights. Due to how due process can be ignored and any alleged suspect is found guilty untill proven innocent, the entire site could even be taken down because of this. Any site that presents any information on any copyrighted material whatsoever is under threat of this, since fair use is not recognized anymore in this bill.82.139.82.155 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What wording in specific? What provision or definition would Wikipedia fall under? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• This may be OK in the project namespace, but definitely not the article namespace.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming humorless

Let's not.

First of all it would sacrifice integrity. Second, it would accomplish nothing. And there's no need. This bill really *is* THAT BAD. A simple and dispassionate recital of the facts gets you blown off as some sort of paranoid whacko, and I should know. The people on the pro-SOPA side didn't get up one morning and decide to wipe out the internet. They literally know not what they do, and some of them sincerely believe that they are preserving US jobs. They get their say. But they don't get their own facts, and I am not sure where the balance is there. Comment is invited on that point.

If they make statements that are literally ludicrous on a technical level, you can't quote those and then refute them, as people will quote the statements back at you. DNSSEC? No problem! Michael O'Leary says we'll think of something! So what if this is something that's been inching through committees for sixteen years? Not sure how to handle the frankly ridiculous. But I don't think we have to just regurgitate it in the name of NPOV. On the other hand, since there are now so few supporters, we should make an effort to quote some of the more intelligent.

Bottom line... just the freaking facts, ok? Elinruby (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're cherry picking sources. [1], [2] (this last one address potential *real* conflicts of interests, rather than this amorphous weird allegations of "Hollywood" being involved).

One of the more obnoxious aspects of this discussion, as well as Jimbo's proposal is just this presumption - which was made implicitly and unwarrantedly assumed - that *everyone* on wikipedia agrees with the premise that this is a bad bill, and more so, that it's bad to the extent where they're all itching to do something about it. It tramples on individual editors' right to make up their own damn mind, and treats them like little children who will follow blindly follow along with whatever the Wikipedia "authority" says. Volunteer Marek  03:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see the conservative POV so fully or even fulsomely presented and I don't worry much about my rights as an editor or whatever. I worry more about mission. We aren't just another large Web site that benefits from the statutory status quo; we're Wikipedia and defending Americanism or Wikipedia or all the other good things in the world should not be prominent among the aims of any article. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Two involved Congressional staffers get jobs as lobbyists

"Two high level Congressional staffers who have been instrumental in creating or moving forward both PROTECT IP (PIPA) and SOPA have left their jobs on Capitol Hill and taken jobs with two of the biggest entertainment industry lobbyists, who are working very hard to convince Congress to pass the legislation they just helped write. And people wonder why the American public looks on DC as being corrupt." Shockingly Unshocking: Two Congressional Staffers Who Helped Write SOPA/PIPA Become Entertainment Industry Lobbyists, techdirt.com, Dec 9th 2011.84.152.57.235 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Better link for that is here. One might also want to include the Official link for THOMAS in the External links. Not that I'm going to hold my breath waiting for anyone here to bother to get the basic facts out there. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yanno... sign in and smile when you say that;) Please do contribute any basic facts that seem to need contributing. Better yet, you could keep an eye on the 109 footnotes for me, as seem to get vandalized, deleted or moved on a frequent basis. Or maybe this page is making me paranoid. I am not ruling that out. If there's anything they don't cover please let me know. Or let the page know. Or something.

As for better, it depends on your definition of better, I think. Mike Masnick has actually been writing about copyright law for years and tends to be the journalist who breaks the stories. Actually However, he does not mince words and the site looks like a blog. More to the point, The RS noticeboard has already decided several times that Politico is RS, so at a mimimum we should use both and maybe just Politico. Only thing is, I noticed earlier that someone has flagged a Politico footnote the article already has as needing a login. Anyone know anything about that?

And yes, I am reading the article. Thank you for it. It likely contains material the others don't. Before I start on it though I want to answer the earlier thread. Thanks for the link ;) Elinruby (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike and rest of the bloggers are all quoting (and linking to) the Politico article. That's the reason it's "better", in the sense of being the original. Including both links is fine, if Mike is adding something additional. 75.59.206.69 (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thought I answered this saying that in that case you were right. Section will need to be re-written now anyway though as this sourced material has been removed. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Congressional staffers behind SOPA get shiny new jobs as entertainment industry lobbyists

(boingboing) via slashdot via techdirt, politico, helpful or not reliable or not important? -- Cherubino (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It was getting removed. *I* think it's *very* relevant.Elinruby (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you need to ask if it is relevant, then that in itself should send up a red flag. What do reliable sources convey as to relevance? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Self published blogs

Going through and bug hunting REF errors I found several sources from self-published blogs. Are they confirmed WP:RS for the usage? Alatari (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends. Please list the refs in question. There's also the possibility a different ref can be found. 75.60.7.92 (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please list the blogs you're concerned about. AFAIK none of them are actually self-published and the one or two that are borderline are experts. But I have not given the page a good going over in a while. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December edits

In response to...

• This article needs to be substantially rewritten in more neutral language, as it currently stands it comes across as if it was written by staunch opponents of the bill as a case against the bill, and not encyclopedic at all. 58.106.11.54 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would agree that the article comes across as very biased. I would edit it if I knew anything about it, but coming here for information I find that this is a rare occasion in which I don't feel comfortable trusting Wikipedia's neutrality. TheK3vin (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• If you ask me you could do the most good by fleshing out the supporters as the article leans if anything against the bill just now. Elinruby (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Throughout the article, the POV is obvious: the amount of anti-bill content outnumbers the amount of pro-bill content by several times. Like it or not, we're bound to heed WP:NPOV, the first sentence of which notes that proportional coverage is required. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

...I agree with the above. I've made some edits (but only scratched the surface of the numerous POV issues) to begin to address that and improve our article, including the following:
(1) A lot of general copy editing for easier reading,
(2) Removed two 'lobbyist' sentences from "Criticism of the November 16 committee hearing" section as unrelated to that hearing (and no significant factual relevance to this bill was conveyed),
(3) Removed red-links from the See Also section per WP:SEEALSO,
(4) Removed links from the See Also section that already existed in the body of the article per WP:SEEALSO,
(4) Removed unused references from the refs list and fixed citation errors introduced by recent edits,

Yes, I've been doing a lot of this. Lot of edit volume from a wide variety of editors leads to great number of ref errors. Alatari (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(5) Removed paragraph about DoJ comments about a different bill, from 2008, from the "Criticism of the November 16 committee hearing" section -- it said nothing about that hearing (and no significant factual relevance to this bill was conveyed),
(6) Added Thomas link to bill specifics, per above suggestion,
(7) Removed an unsourced paragraph (and the citation-needed tag) asserting that users know how to exchange a domain name with a numeric IP address, and that changing operating system settings is "easy",
(8) Removed web-filtering software paragraph as source does not mention SOPA, nor are its conclusions made applicable to the bill, WP:SYNTH,
(9) Moved the following content here until adequate sourcing is provided conveying relevance to SOPA (present sources make no mention of the bill, indicating WP:SYNTH): Operation In Our Sites, a current DoJ program, redirects web requests to a warning page. In Cuba, an error message appears: "This programme will close down in a few seconds for state security reasons", according to Reporters Without Borders. The Chinese DNS filters simply drop the request, making it look like the site is offline or out of business. In March 2010, misconfigured Chinese DNS servers prevented certain users in Chile and the United States from accessing Twitter, YouTube or Facebook among other sites, illustrating "the implications of China’s effort to impose ‘‘localized’’ restrictions to something as inherently global in scope as the Internet." In February 2008 Pakistan Telecom's attempt to block a YouTube video briefly blocked the site for an estimated two thirds of the internet.
(10) Replaced CN tags with citations,
(11) Moved the following content here pending sourcing and relevance: The structure of a web site is distinct from domain structure or enterprise architecture, which may in turn not correspond to the physical or virtual network devices. Individual pages of a website are files or, more usually, folders containing many files, located on a server which may belong to the domain holder or be rented from a cloud computing provider such as Amazon or Rackspace. ... An IP address usually corresponds to a physical interface on a device. That device may be a firewall or a web server or some other hardware. Web hosts may assign many low-traffic web sites to a single address, distributing their traffic internally. Large domains and wide area networks may have multiple IP addresses, usually for load balancing. Such large systems would probably have a dedicated server for incoming web traffic in a DMZ outside the firewall. High-traffic web sites like Wikipedia.org or Amazon.com have multiple servers and may use several IP addresses to spread traffic between them. Most networks also use network address translation or port address translation, so the IP address seen outside the domain probably is for a firewall interface, not the computer that initiated the traffic. I left in the opinion of A.M. Reilly (?!) of some online 'magazine', temporarily -- is there a better source?
(12) Leaving the NPOV tag for now...
Xenophrenic (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You've been asked before to discuss such edits before making them. Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall such a favor being asked, nor my agreement to it, but checking the time-stamps, it appears that I did. My end of it, anyway. Your input is always welcome. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(11) is tangentially relevant and slightly wrong. I would leave it out. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

Cite

Im new to wiki and dont know how to fix my citing for the Dec. 15 section added. Someone fix it :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearmaster3000 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I have requested a Peer Review for this page, in the hope that it can be brought to FA status. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

List of supporters?

Hi folks - I wonder if you might consider adding the Wikimedia Foundation to the list of orgs that are opposing SOPA. Back in November we (which I'm stating as a staffer of WMF) posted our opposition on the WMF blog, and more recently our GC Geoff Brigham has outlined our specific problems with even the updated version of the proposed bill. Thanks! JayWalsh (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Aude (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What about the tech companies that support SOPA [3]? There are reportedly 29 of them, including Microsoft and Apple. As it stands, the only references I found to tech companies were those in opposition. This seems to be needed for balance. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was surprised that Microsoft and Apple were not mentioned in the article. I Googled to try to find out their position on SOPA (I assumed pro-), and found contradictory information. Some articles say they support it, other say they implicitly (ie, are assumed to) support it, some say they oppose it, and yet others say they quietly oppose it. From what I can gather, it seems that AAPL & MSFT did initially support it (an older draft?) and have since changed their stances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives has released the full list of SOPA supporters in a PDF. http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf May be worth adding as a new page with a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.156.214.167 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2011

Fix the typo 'and' to 'an' in the follow sentence in the opening section

"Opponents say it is and infringement of First Amendment rights"

Ator2K (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Vint Cerf, not Vince Cerf

Semi-protected, so can't fix the typo of Mr. Cerf's name. 75.67.16.196 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Update to committee reconvene date

Techdirt reports that the Judiciary Committee will potentially reconvene on Wednesday 21 (also reported by Jason Chaffetz and EFF); the bill could still be passed before 2012.

Please update the following text at the end of the 4th paragraph to reflect that SOPA has the potential to pass this month:

Before: "The hearing ended inconclusively inasmuch it was decided to postpone further debate until after Congress' holiday break."

After: "The hearing ended inconclusively, and was reportedly postponed until after Congress' holiday break, before being rescheduled for Wednesday December 21."

 Done --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 15:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Illustration

Are there any PD images oF the various committees deliberating? Or anything useful... Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC).

Interwiki

Translation started, please add it:Stop Online Piracy Act. Thank you :-) --Civvì (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions for improvement/informal review

While I'm not experienced at peer review, and so won't do the "formal" one, here's some things that jump out at me:

• The "Contents" section, especially when compared with "Ramifications", is just a few paragraphs. While I think it's appropriate for "Ramifications" to be large (that's what source coverage of this bill has focused on), it may be helpful to give a bit more detail as to what's in the bill before jumping into the discussion of what its predicted consequences are.
• The Sandia report should probably have its own section, since it was explicitly requested to be prepared by Congress. Right now it's just briefly mentioned.
• This could also help to solve the next problem, which I see as more significant. Right now, the "ramifications" sections are written in the "X said foo, Y said bar..." format. This causes it to look like a poor newspaper "he said/she said" story with little or no critical analysis presented. The Sandia report, from a neutral expert body that doesn't stand to benefit one way or the other, could be used to present analysis of the legitimacy of such claims, rather than just noting that they were made.
• There are undue weight problems stemming from the "he said/she said" style as well. If the majority of analysis in reliable sources toward a given part is negative or positive, or trends toward a particular view, we should properly reflect that as a majority viewpoint, while still mentioning the dissenting viewpoint(s) and framing it as a minority dissent. If the analysis really is essentially split down the middle, we should note that explicitly.

All told, I think this is a great start on it, especially in such a short time frame. I think we'll all (me included :) ) have to watch ourselves and one another for unconscious bias, as most of us here have strong personal opinions on this. But with the amount of sourcing available, this is a great candidate for a good, neutral, and ultimately featured article. If anyone has any thoughts on these suggestions, would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

re: the Sandia report - letter, actually. It was specifically requested by Lofgren (not Congress, if I recall), the lead opponent against the bill in the House of Representatives. I read it as being specific only about the DNS filtering provisions, and it didn't address the rest of the bill ... and that was before the recent amendments and mark-ups. The response begins: "Thank you for your letter requesting the expertise of Sandia National Laboratories to provide a technical assessment of the Domain Name Service filtering provisions in H.R.3261 and S.968." It basically echoed concerns raised in the whitepaper by Crocker, et al. That is why it is presently in the DNS filtering section. Could you elaborate on your idea to give it a separate section?

If you compare the actual response from Napolitano at Sandia to Rep. Lofgren's portrayal of that response, there appears to be a discrepancy. Lofgren says, "The letter reports that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) would “negatively impact U.S. and global cybersecurity and Internet functionality.”" But the letter doesn't; it expresses concern with just one provision -- a provision that has been under scrutiny and revision recently. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Considerations

Regarding SOPA#Detection considerations, the note about google is from Katherine Oyama, and it uses the term 'fleshtones' in the source article. Could someone fix this? I can't due to article protection. SeeTheInvisible (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is SOPA an ETJ? 108.54.62.227 (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Adam Savage / Popular Mechanics resource

MythBuster Adam Savage: SOPA Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It, "Soon the U.S. Congress will reconvene to consider the Protect IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Mythbuster and PM contributing editor Adam Savage says that if these sweeping pieces of legislation pass, the U.S. will join the likes of China and Iran in censoring the Internet, and destroy the openness that made the Web perhaps the most important technological advance of his lifetime."

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually saw that site 5 minutes ago! Thanks for the link and we might use it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Media conflict of interest?

What is the problem with having a section on "Media conflict of interest"?

It is clearly not controversial that many individuals and organizations have a Conflict of interest on issues impacting them. It is also a fact that Robert W. McChesney has published serious scholarly work discussing conflicts of interest involving commercial media organizations; the work of his that I know that discusses this is The Problem of the Media. The Copyright law of the United States is based on constitutional provisions giving congress the "Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The US Copyright Act of 1790 gave authors the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" for 28 years. Changes to the copyright law have extended those dates in response to intense lobbying from the commercial media, while doing everything they can to keep the issue out of the news. More documentation may be needed of the details behind exactly how all this was achieved, and major commercial media organizations could be expected to produce a huge smoke screen to justify extending their rights at the expense of the public. However, it hardly changes the fact that commercial media organizations have a conflict of interest on these issues. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's "clearly not controversial", please provide a reliable source discussing the issue explicitly. If that's your personal conclusion on the matter based on other material, it is disallowed, as no original research is permitted. If you do have a source that discusses the issue, could you please provide it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comments on two counts:

• By the standard definition of a Conflict of interest, any individual or organization has a conflict of interest in discussing any proposed legislation that would affect them. It should therefore be highly controversial (even ridiculous) to suggest that the commercial media would NOT have a conflict of interest with any bill dealing with copyright law, because a substantive portion of their revenue and profit come from copyright royalties. However, many people are not accustomed to thinking about conflicts of interest, and therefore might not think about it unless it is mentioned. I would therefore think that almost any article discussing legislation should have a section discussing which groups have conflicts of interest in their position -- especially when the media upon which people rely for information is so directly impacted by the legislation and almost certainly lobbying heavily. It would take some digging to quantify the dollar value of the conflict of interest involved here, and I don't have time for that right now, unfortunately. However, I would expect it to be substantive, at least in the minds of the media executives who are lobbying hard for SOPA and the companion PROTECT IP Act.

• In my discussion of a conflict of interest, I cited McChesney's The Problem of the Media. This is a 370 page monograph by one of the leading scholars of the communications; the book includes 53 pages of notes citing probably well over a thousand scholarly works. McChesney is on the editorial council of the "International Journal of Communication"., which suggests to me that he is hardly controversial with leading scholars in that field. However, I would expect him to be controversial with executives who determine editorial policy in the major commercial media companies, just as scholars whose research showed a relationship between tobacco and cancer are controversial with the American Tobacco Institute and the executives in its member companies. I'm not familiar with the referee procedures of the publisher of this book, Monthly Review Press, so it might be appropriate to question the book on those grounds. And I've seen other books by McChesney that are not as scholarly (especially with him as a second author). DavidMCEddy

Bypassing SOPA

Forbes reported how easy it would be to bypass SOPA, I think some of the insight offered by this article should be included in this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/12/21/sopa-haters-are-already-finding-easy-ways-to-circumvent-its-censorship/

--71.168.203.78 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding SOPA DNS circumvention

(Moved from editor's talk page for further discussion here)

While I was put out by the deletion of several hours of effort, I do understand that it did not conform well to an encyclopedic format and I was not 100% satisified with it myself. I will be doing a rewrite as nothing else in the article references Section 4 and circumvention. I wanted to cross reference the Alternative DNS server caption to the main article. No it should not be a citation. I'll check the help to do that correctly. Given the subject is covered thoroughly in the main article I don't think it needs a citation (the citations here are becoming overwhelming) but I could add one or more from the main DNS article. I will provide seperate citation the DIY claim as well.

I am assuming that your comment regarding opinion as opposed to factual refers to:

1) that alternative dns amounts to a method of circumvention as worded in the bill. As a developer with several projects involving DNS I can say definitavely that alterative dns can circumvent sopa actions. Whether this practical fact is the equivalent of the legal definition may be opinion. I will make a distinction between the commonly understood word and it's interpretable legal meaning. There is substantial jurisprudence that they are the same.

2) alternate DNS providers could be summarily ordered to cease operations. If I can't find a citation from a legal or technological source expressing this concern I will leave it out.

My comments regarding the limitations contained in Section 2 and the lack of limitations in Section 4 are spelled out clearly and redundantly in the text of the bill. Citation 1 is the bill in pdf. If I can find the bill in html with named sections I can cite directly to the clause under discussion.

If there is something else you saw as non-factual in nature please advise.

Regarding the "and inaccurately conveyed as well". That is, in and of itself, an opinion. Welcome to the club. Moulin1 (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's "opinion" that content you introduce accurately convey the cited sources, and that those sources meet WP:RS requirements; I was just the messenger. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling error in Jobs and the Economy section

"Most of this (92%) was business-to-business," said Harvard University's Technology Security Officer Scott Bradner, citing census date in a discussion of the economic effects of net neutrality..." I believe this should say "data." I can't edit a semi-protected article cuz I'm new. Neal.zupancic (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Midlakewinter (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 December 2011

Sopa is a bunch of bull excrements that would kill off all indie market and probably all game streaming, amv/mmv's, parodies and generally everything the internet stands for. Major companies should just improve their services to stop piracy instead off killing the competition and be greedy bastard at least 40 year old idiots that dont know anything about the internet.

78.134.136.17 (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but saying so is not exactly neutral--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of reference to "The Great Firewall of America"

A reference named The Great Firewall of America was not used anywhere in article so I removed it because it gave an error as seen Here. If someone could find where it should be used they can put the reference back in the article. JDOG555 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Put as a note, as we shouldn't delete immediately. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 18:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

How's this work for you? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/firewall-law-could-infringe-on-free-speech.html "Stop the Great Firewall of America" from NYT. Black Max (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Black Max

Another article that misses crucial parts of the bill

I'm beginning to see another USA PATRIOT Act article here in that there is a lot of missing information about what the bill actually says. At least this time it isn't inaccurate... but whole bits of the content of the bill are missing. I'm looking at this bill specifically... For instance, what of section 105? This deals with prescription medicine - nothing to do with piracy. And what of the proposed section 107? This actively prevents the provision of capital to "notorious foreign infringers" (e.g. Pirate Bay).

There's also no mention of section 201, which specifically targets streaming of copyrighted works - on face value it appears that it could ban certain forms of streaming software.

Furthermore, look at section 201 (b) amendments to Title 17 and 18 of the USC (relating to copyright infringements). It will add the following to 18 U.S.C. § 2319:

(g) EVIDENCE OF TOTAL RETAIL VALUE.

For purposes of this section and section 506(a) of title 17, total retail value may be shown by evidence of—

(1) the total retail price that persons receiving the reproductions, distributions, or public performances

constituting the offense would have paid to receive such reproductions, distributions, or public performances

lawfully;

(2) the total economic value of the reproductions, distributions, or public performances to the infringer or to the

copyright owner, as shown by evidence of fee, advertising, or other revenue that was received by the person who

commits the offense, or that the copyright owner would have been entitled to receive had such reproductions,

distributions, or public performances been offered lawfully; or

(3) the total fair market value of licenses to offer the type of reproductions, distributions, or public performances

constituting the offense.

This is a significant modification to criminal penalties.

It seems that there are significant gaps in this article with regards to the explanation of this proposed bill. Can something be done? I have no intention of creating an account, so I'm locked out of this article. - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

As nobody seems to have responded to this, I think I'll just post more on what isn't being covered by this article. An example of the sort of concerns that people are worried about is highlighted by the founder of Weebly on his blog. Basically, GoDaddy almost turned off his domain name hosting due to a bad review of a business. Under section 104 of this proposed bill, a domain registrar could arbitrarily void the domain name registration (and thus their contract with the individual or business) by merely having someone make a "good faith" complaint against the business. - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You can use {{Edit protected}}. Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

Surely not the right template? - 60.241.240.46 (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Or {{Edit semi protected}} depending... Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

Cheers Rich. I might do a bit of write-up first, then post it to the talk page. - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay blocked in Denmark?

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/348153/pirate_bay_must_stay_blocked_denmark_says_court/ As a danish citizen I can inform you that it is not true that The Pirate Bay is blocked in the entire country of Denmark, it is in fact only blocked by certain ISPs. 83.92.106.198 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a internet link stating that the site is blocked by ISPs. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Having checked a number of (Danish) news sources, I can affirm that The Pirate Bay (TPB) is blocked by apparently all Danish ISPs due to several affirmations that ISPs should not allow their customers access to the site. I know of no Danish ISPs who do not follow this policy as they would then be liable for fines.

The original verdict (here in English) of January 29th 2008 from the bailiff's court ( 'fogedretten' ) of Frederiksberg forced one ISP (DMT2) to block TPB, and this has been confirmed by all courts up to and including the Supreme Court of Denmark on May 27th 2010. Since this last verdict (or perhaps the prior November 26th 2008 verdict by the High Court of Eastern Denmark, 'Østre Landsret' ), I believe all Danish ISPs have blocked TPB. This is the picture given by Danish IT magasine Computerworld as well as the newspapers Politiken, Information and Jyllandsposten.

Backing up to the original question: Stating that TPB is banned in Denmark is de facto true, although de jure it is 'only' banned by the ISPs, following the 2008 verdict. However, this may change depending on how the ruling of the European Court of Justice on the Belgian case of SABAM v. Scarlett is to be interpreted in a Danish context. One Danish lawyer has been quoted by Computerworld, saying that SABAM v. Scarlett does not apply to the Danish TPB case, as the Belgian case dealt with a general filter, not the blocking of a particular site.

Mojowiha (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Resource

Hollywood Tries to Wash the Web with SOPA; The Stop Online Piracy Act aims to stop illegal streaming. It won’t by Brendan Greeley December 15, 2011, 4:30 PM EST BusinessWeek

99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Petition against SOPA

On December 18, 2011, a petition was created on the White House website. It can be found here. On this site, the White House will address any petition (within reason) that acquires at least 25,000 signatures within 30 days of creation of the petition. This specific signature had over 43,000 signatures on December 28, 2011, and is likely to get many more before the "signature deadline" on January 17, 2011. Since there is such strong opposition (as most petitions struggle to get 25,000 signatures over the course of 30 days, and this one got 43,000 in 10 days), would it be reasonable to add this petition to the "Other" section of the Opposition to SOPA? 99.22.5.97 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Only if the White House petition is mentioned in reliable news reports from secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So it's not enough for the White House to make it one of the top issues on their We the People petition site? 99.22.5.97 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As anyone can submit a petition, no. See WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not convinced. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55 seems a perfectly RS that that petition has gathered over 55000 sigs. However I'm sure there will be third party sources along in a minute. Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

Start with Forbes and Tech Dirt]. Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

Interesting commentary from advocates on the subject (read: signers of the petitions), but the actual concern seems to be that we are lacking reliable sources suitable for assertion of fact (as well as reporting on relevancy and significance). I'm guessing the subject won't rise to that level of significant coverage until/if the White House responds. Until then, they look to be yet more petitions (like the previous letters of protest to Congress, letters of protest and boycott to supporters, etc.) that have accumulated signatures after having been posted or circulated through public forums. Should we wait for a newsworthy response and reliably sourced news coverage, or should we take this opportunity to use this Wikipedia article to promote it? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In the companies section of the Wikipedia article, and in many articles outside of Wikipedia, it uses the letter dated September 22nd, 2011 to draw a list of supporter for SOPA, which was proposed on October 26th, 2011. This is obviously inaccurate as the bill had not been proposed yet. The original letter, which is cited in the article, lists companies that support legislation of some kind, not necessarily censorship or the blocking of websites. If the article could reflect that, it would be appreciated. Nobodey (talk) 20

01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the list of the supporters accurate?

What is the reason for Loreal, Revlon, and Pfizer to support SOPA. They technically have no reason to support or go against the SOPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.79.155 (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not know. It would be interesting to know, however. I'm sure many supporting companies will lose a lot of business because of this. 99.22.0.78 (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

SOPA or some variation thereof is necessary in order to support the requirements of the ACTA Treaty which was signed by the USA. ACTA deals with counterfeiting (copying) of products and software.AnimeJanai (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Counterfeit consumer goods Jim.henderson (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with online piracy. People should be free to choose what they buy. If for example Pfizer is losing sales they should compete and cut down their prices to a price closer to generic drugs. For a drug company to support this won't help them in anyway as most people get their prescriptions from pharmacies in CVS, Kroger, Walmart, hospitals etc and all support generic drugs. For drugs there is a drastic differance in price betwen the generic and brand version and if there are no generic drugs then cost of your health insurance will skyrocket which will create a huge uproar. For a companies like Loreal and Revlon supporting this won't help them in any way at all as their competition comes primarily from other leading brands and their generic versions. Revlon I am not sure why they are supporting this because all their products are priced reasonably and they are also one of the leading competitors against Loreal on certain products. None of the other cosmetic and drug companies are on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.79.155 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The main target of SOPA is websites that sell counterfeit goods, and cosmetics and drug companies spend millions a year combatting the same websites. Regardless, please don't use this as a general forum on the subject. WP:NOTAFORUM Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The article should mention parallels to the ACTA Treaty. This is because the ACTA Treaty requires laws, legal infrastructure, and funding to support efforts similar to what SOPA is trying to accomplish. In effect, SOPA can be considered an attempt to satisfy some of the requirements set forth by ACTA. The ACTA Treaty was signed by the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and others, with signing by the European Union and other treaty founding members in the works.AnimeJanai (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess they are trying to crack down on the very counterfeited goods (for example: urine instead of an expensive perfume.) I guess generics should not be limited but such fake products bring harm to everyone (the company that sells the genuine product and the consumer who uses the product) except those who make it. Imagine if Loreal's shampoos were counterfeited. People would be outraged and would stop buying Loreal products because they would think Loreal relaxed quality control measures or something. THe real deal would be that some counterfeiters (perhaps in China) are effectively ruining the business. However, since nobody downloads shampoo off the internet, I personally think it would only make sense for companies that sell tangible products to support ACTA, but not SOPA. Just my two cents. 99.22.5.97 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul is in opposition to SOPA, as seen here: http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/31/2673136/ron-paul-blasts-sopa Would add, but article is locked, for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.7.35 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposition/Other - Wrong year for European Union resolution

"In November 18, 2001, the European Union Parliament adopted". The year should be 2011, according to both references used. 194.237.142.21 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

China comparison

Former senator Chris Dodd *apparently* made a comment that if China can censor its Internet, America can too. Can anyone confirm and then if so, can we add in a section (probably in the pros/for portion) for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.48.69 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I heard from some people (Don't know if it's accurate) but SOPA is being compared to censorship in line with that of China, Iran, and Syria. Don't take my word for it... but this assumption is out there among people. 99.22.5.97 (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in citation given? Misplaced reference?

"They cite examples such as Google's $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to buy illegal prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies." There is a link to the a reference after this statement, which is this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-debate-why-are-google-and-facebook-against-it/2011/11/17/gIQAvLubVN_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop

I've read it, but I don't see clearly anything that supports the quoted statement above. The only mention of something related to pharmacies or pharmaceuticals was in this statement: "Supporting the bill is a powerful group of lobbies interested in protecting intellectual property, including the Motion Picture Association of America, *pharmaceuticals makers*, media firms and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

I've added a "not in citation given" tag, but maybe this reference was intended to the previous statement? -> "Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws especially against foreign websites." - In this case, it could be a reference that became misplaced in the process of editing the article.

189.59.147.20 (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your last suspicion is correct. The settlement content in the lede is a summary of cited content elsewhere in the body of the article. It should have been inserted after the reference, rather than before it ... hence the confusion. I've moved the reference citation to the correct location. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2012

After the sentence:

The MPAA representative who testified before the committee said that the motion picture and film industry supports two million jobs and 95,000 small businesses.[16]

Please add:

However, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, the movie industry employed 374,000 people in 2010 including both full and part time workers.

78.49.66.218 (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided isn't to a CRS report, it is to a Masnick opinion piece. The actual CRS report doesn't appear to support the "However..." argument you are proposing. Can you provide an independent reliable source that interprets the results of that report, and establishes in what way it refutes the position expressed by the MPAA rep? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please repost the edit request when you have a better link. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2012

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill expands the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods by making it a felony to stream copyrighted material online and allowing law enforcement to impose restrictions on DNS servers, search engines, site hosts and site owners. The bill would allow copyright holders the ability to expedite legal action against site owners and consumers for copyright infringement by allowing them to submit complaints directly to the Department of Justice. The bill also targets proxy sites, proxy distributors and consumers in possession of any circumvention software that may be used to bypass any Justice Department erected blockade. Now before the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act. Gotchaman (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Expedite"? Action against "consumers"? Probably not. Certainly not according to the cited source. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

reddit will blackout against SOPA on jan 18

http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/stopped-they-must-be-on-this-all.html http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398748,00.asp 84.198.142.45 (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 Jan 2012

Under section 5.2 (Opposition: Companies and organizations) please add "WordPress" after "the Wikimedia Foundation". Prof. Squirrel (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we get an official statement sourced to Wordpress or an authorized spokesperson, instead of an employee of Automattic? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

She's the UX lead and several sources have recognized WordPress as being "officially" against SOPA (and PIPA). Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia against NPOV?

There are far more "Arguments in favor" than the ones mentioned (e.g SOPA will cut down on cyberbullying), but of course, since Wikipedia is against SOPA, the "Arguments against" section is larger. The article is not neutral enough. Wikipedia hypocrisy in action. 79.100.16.19 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A "Neutral-Point-Of-View" (WP:NPOV) Has *Always* Been The Goal On *All* Wikipedia Articles In My Experiences - *All* Appropriately "Referenced" Arguments - "For" or "Against" - Would Be Carefully Considered I Would Think - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that the opposers of the bill tend to be cyberbullies and people that don't care about their users' privacy (e.g. Facebook). 79.100.16.19 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats a bunch of crap right there. If this bill gets passed the government will spy on everything we do online. Its the supporters that don't care about privacy, not the non supporters. Not to mention it will create nonstop issues with companies suing other other over copy right claims regardless of whether its true or false Pyrolord777 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So, what's wrong with that? Facebook spies on you at this time now, but nobody's complaining. Besides, I'm not doing anything to be afraid of online. I'm just fed up with people bullying others online and getting away with it. I'm fed up with people impersonating me online. I'm fed up with people downloading mp3s without paying (I'm a singer). 79.100.16.19 (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting slightly off topic but unless I am missing something the proposed law in question does not even address cyber bullying or people inpersnating others so I don't see how anything you mentioned except the part about MP3s has anything to do with this proposed law. Are you somehow suggesting that trafficing in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods is cybeerbullying because if not I can't see how this law even remotely relates. --70.24.206.51 (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a legitimate point here. I was just looking at the article, and the same problem occurred to me. While I disagree with SOPA (quite vigorously, in fact), the article is currently heavily NPOV. There are approximately 2 dozen sentences covering the "in favour", and about 5x as much opposed. A similar problem exists in the "Supporters" and "Opposition" sections. The Supporters section has been shortened (splitting part off into another page), but the same wasn't done with Opposition.

This all combines to add a pretty severe WP:UNDUE, to the Opposition. On something that Wikipedia has taken an official position on, we need to be very conscious of anything that might come across as giving undue weight to our position. 24.11.87.186 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe there are just more, better and/or more complicated arguments against SOPA than for it. NPOV does not require us to make viewpoints look equally valid or prominent, to give them equal space etc. It requires us to accurately summarize the sum total of available sources. --87.78.50.138 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My objection doesn't come from the fact that there is more material on one than another. It's that, at very least, certain parts are legitimately being put in different areas. Examples:

• The AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida, arguing in favor of SOPA, has stated that free speech was not a relevant consideration, because "The First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks."[27] -- Put in Arguments Against
• According to critics[who?], the bill would ban linking to sites deemed offending, even in search results[31] -- Weasel words that aren't even in the provided source.
• Proponents of the bill have countered these claims, arguing that filtering is already commonly used. A supporter of the bill, Michael O'Leary of the MPAA argued at the November 16 Judiciary Committee hearing that the act's effect on business would be more minimal, noting that at least 16 countries block websites, and the internet still functions in those countries.[34] MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd noted that Google figured out how to block sites when China requested it.[35] Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Italy blocked The Pirate Bay after courts ruled in favor of music and film industry litigation, and a coalition of film and record companies has threatened to sue British Telecom if it does not follow suit.[36] Maria Pallante of the US Copyright Office said that Congress has updated the Copyright Act before and should again, or "the U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail." Asked for clarification, she said that the US currently lacks jurisdiction over websites in other countries.[34] -- Again, in the Arguments Against section.
• Goodlatte stated, "We're open to working with them on language to narrow [the bill's provisions], but I think it is unrealistic to think we're going to continue to rely on the DMCA notice-and-takedown provision. Anybody who is involved in providing services on the Internet would be expected to do some things. But we are very open to tweaking the language to ensure we don't impose extraordinary burdens on legitimate companies as long as they aren't the primary purveyors [of pirated content]".[43][44]

The MPAA's O'Leary submitted written testimony in favor of the bill that expressed guarded support of current DMCA provisions. "Where these sites are legitimate and make good faith efforts to respond to our requests, this model works with varying degrees of effectiveness," O'Leary wrote. "It does not, however, always work quickly, and it is not perfect, but it works."[17] -- Again, in the Arguments Against section, rather than Arguments in Favour

• In response to Carr's article, bill sponsor and Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said the article "unfairly criticizes the Stop Online Piracy Act", and, "does not point to any language in the bill to back up the claims. SOPA targets only foreign Web sites that are primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. Domestic Web sites, like blogs, are not covered by this legislation." Smith also said that Carr incorrectly framed the debate as between the entertainment industry and high-tech companies, noting support by more than "120 groups and associations across diverse industries, including the United States Chamber of Commerce".[51] -- Again, in the Arguments Against section, instead of Arguments in Favour.

This was from a 5 minute check. And again, the Opposition section gives quotes and statements from all groups that could be found that disagree. The Supporters section just lists people who support it, and not even all of them. They've been split off into a different section. This is clearly POV-pushing.

24.11.87.186 (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Riot is against SOPA

The CEO even made a post about it on the League Of Legends forum. This info is missing from the Opposition list.

There is also another site that talks about it and how it drew the support of a congressman http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/12/2701288/riot-games-sopa-protest Pyrolord777 (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph describing NetCoalition may not be appropriate

The paragraph below under the heading of Opposition/Companies and organizations, reads as if it is an article on NetCoalition, instead of on SOPA.

"In late December, 2011, Erickson of NetCoalition spoke out about the possibility of a coordinated protest blackout by Internet companies. Erickson was most recently founding co-partner of the Holch & Erickson law firm and NetCoalition was a decade-plus-old "loose coalition of Internet companies" which was operating under his part-time leadership. NetCoalition had increased its lobbying budget to $140,000 in 2011 from $40,000 in 2010 and was starting to look for a full-time "high profile, seasoned executive director". Also the group had hired two lobbying firms, TwinLogic Strategies and Black Swan, to represent its interests on Capitol Hill and was reportedly moving towards "more of a trade association presence”.[112] Erickson and law-firm co-founding partner Niels C. Holch represent clients before the United States Congress and various Federal administrative agencies.[113] The coalition has a webpage and Twitter feed."

I wonder if it should be trimmed down? Petersontinam (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Rep. Issa postpones January 18 SOPA hearings!

I have the news that Rep. Darrell Issa has postponed the January 18 hearings on SOPA's DNS provisions! This is sweet news... for now. Story You should update this article about it ASAP! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Jan. 14 Edits - expanded summary

As the Edit Summary field is small, I'm explaining some of the recent edits I've made in greater detail here:

• Per the concerns raised above, removed the inappropriate company profiles for Erickson's law firm and coalition. Recommend someone create a NetCoalition Wikipedia article, as they seem to have established a notable presence in the online piracy debate.
• Separated several instances of protest actions (both conducted and merely proposed) into their own section. Seems to be enough of them to justify it.
• Moved not-exactly-neutral section conveying arguments about protests from the lede to the protest section for copy-editing, and left a summary in the lede.
• Moved White House statement from lede to "oppose" section, but editors need to review what the WH response actually says: are they for, against, or carefully sitting on the fence with that response?
• More edits to come... Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lacking clear information about 18 January 2012 hearing

"Protest actions" talks about "(...) internet blackout on the day of the 18 January 2012 hearing.", whereas no information about a future hearing is in other section (for example "Legislative history", which still talks about future hearing of related PROTECT IP Act). --79.31.140.33 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Some things that should be addressed in the article

The main question I'm trying to answer is how the bill is enforced: the courts are involved through orders, but is there an expectation that there will be trials, or is it all administrative authorities? Should there be a discussion of preponderance of the evidence in the article, or is that moot?

Some other things that don't make sense to me on a quick read of the bill:

• The "savings clause" that indicates that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution." What the heck is a savings clause anyway?
• The other "savings clause" talks about 17 USC (the group of laws that addresses copyright). What applicable laws under title 17 could be seriously affected and how does the proposed SOPA modify those laws? What are the existing remedies under law and why are they considered inadequate?
• What is the context and result of 102(c)(4)(C) "DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection."?
• How does this law compare to other (i.e. international) copyright laws regarding web content? To the DMCA and previous US legislation?

The "pro and con list" approach is not an encyclopedia article. 50.135.46.11 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Arguments for/arguments against" structure replaced

The complaints that people had about the seeming bias in the "arguments for/arguments against" structure (and the fact that the latter section was much larger) made sense, so I just changed it. I was actually the one who originally formatted the article into that structure - to be fair, I think it was a big improvement over what was there before, which was a big mess of unstructured quotes. I only really changed the names of the section headers, but hopefully this is a step forward in making this an encyclopedic article. Yaron K. (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Addition of a disclaimer

Since the Wikimedia Foundation and several of its employees (including Jimbo & Geoff Brigham) have been outspoken critics of SOPA, should there be some kind of disclaimer saying something to that effect? It should probably say something akin to "The Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, has been a published critic of the Stop Online Piracy Act" and go on either the top of the article or in #Arguments against. It is clear that the article is not written in violation of WP:COI or WP:NPOV but this would just be a precaution, a sui generis policy. Cocoaguy ここがいい 00:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the foundation does not determine content of the article; volunteer editors do. There is no need for a declaration. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I understand that the articles are not written by the foundation, and it is not as if the foundation is actively altering the text of the article. But I suggest this in the name of transparency, as several prominent members have been extremely vocal. Cocoaguy ここがいい 04:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, the foundation has taken action punitively against supporter of SOPA. Cocoaguy ここがいい 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We could just add that those people oppose the bill, and the disclaiming should come implicitly. Nevertheless, it is still simpler to try to make the article neutral and add a NPOV tag if that fails. And cocoaguy, can you elaborate on what you suspect is happening? Find diffs to support your suspicions. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the opinions and statements of the Wikipedia employees and volunteers, we're still on an encyclopedia and the articles in it should maintain encyclopedic standards, as written in Wikipedia guidelines. I don't consider an extra disclaimer really necessary, as long as users keep checking each other's work for neutrality. Jurjenb (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia anti-SOPA initiative is an independent protest effort by (some) Wikipedians. It would be accurate to add the Wikimedia Foundation to the list of those opposed to SOPA. Other than that, this article has nothing to do with the protest. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to temporarily exempt this article from NPOV

There are a couple of instances where Wikipedia has temporarily compromised on its encyclopedic integrity for the greater good.

And although e.g. the David Rohde case was a matter of life and death, the point is that Wikipedia has in the past temporarily suspended aspects of its core content policies when there was a good reason to do so.

In this spirit, I'd like to propose that we temporarily exempt this article from the requirements of the NPOV policy and rewrite it much more in accordance with Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Geoff Brigham's views on how SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia. --87.78.50.138 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been proposed before, and was rejected, but consensus can change.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean this discussion? There weren't many people involved there, so maybe it's time we put this to a vote; and better here at the article in question than at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative. At any rate, I won't go forumshopping with this idea. If it catches on and a majority is for it, that would be great.

From anyone opposed to this idea, I'd like to hear a proper reasoning as to what exactly the threshold for temporarily suspending aspects of the pillars should be in their opinion. Is censorship and deliberate misrepresentation in order when it's about one man's life, but not aligning this article's point of view with our project's point of view when it comes to SOPA? --87.78.50.138 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We could put a disclaimer like "Wikipedia oppose SOPA", but since this act does have its supporters, I would say let's not make an exemption.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Individual supporters among the editors, sure. There were and are also people against censorship in the David Rohde case. Did we listen to them? No, and neither should we, it only makes us gameable and trollable by people who do not actually care about what is best for Wikimedia/Wikipedia. The WMF as an organization and Wikipedia as a project are clearly opposed to SOPA.

The disclaimer is imho made obsolete by the proposed (and so far strongly supported) banner and/or blackout proposal. --87.78.50.138 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

On a random note about David Rohde, as the article itself mentions, there were (arguably) no reliable sources regarding the kidnapping, so the information could be removed on the grounds of verifiability and therefore (arguably) without "suspending aspects of the pillars". Obviously this reasoning could apply to any media blackout. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding David Rohde, it's incorrect that there were "no reliable sources" - there were foreign reliable sources, which were deliberated and willfully disregarded as part of the Wikipedia blackout. It was overall quite a disturbing episode. See the column I wrote about the matter, "The moral quandary of involving Wikipedia in online 'censorship'". Back to SOPA, what would it mean to deliberately disregard NPOV? Introducing falsehoods about how SOPA would destroy Wikipedia, and doing this for the supposed greater good of the Net? (that's disturbingly close to happening now :-() -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies; arguably was wrongly placed there. I am inclined not to argue about this one. But as far as POV —necessarily!— introducing falsehoods; I must disagree (albeit, it seams probable). And, just for the record, I am against Wikipedia becoming involved in political maneuvering of any kind, including SOPA opposition. But one must also bear in mind that in the end, Wikipedia is controlled by the Wikimedia foundation and they may do with it (the website) as they please and that Wikipedia has no firm rules. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with SOPA. I also believe that presented with accurate, NPOV information, a reasonable person would be. If we present POV information, I would be the first to question what we have to hide, and why we can't present it neutrally, to let others make up their own minds. Essentially, what would be gained by compromising NPOV?

24.11.87.186 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to the person who started this. After I posted, I looked at the previous discussion, and had somebody make my very point, quite effectively. With respect, I'd like to copy and paste their argument, so those who were too lazy to read it before posting (like myself) don't miss the point.

Wikipedia did not actually suspend policy in that case. Part of the policy on BLP is that "possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment" and the David Rohde incident was a clear-cut case where real-life harm was threatened by including information about him on Wikipedia. Before that the wording was even more strict in saying "do no harm" when including information about living persons. There is already a push for Wikipedia to ignore its policies on this subject by having a blackout of the site. We really should not be compromising the principles of the project even more over this subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming humorless

Let's not.

First of all it would sacrifice integrity. Second, it would accomplish nothing. And there's no need. This bill really *is* THAT BAD. A simple and dispassionate recital of the facts gets you blown off as some sort of paranoid whacko, and I should know. The people on the pro-SOPA side didn't get up one morning and decide to wipe out the internet. They literally know not what they do, and some of them sincerely believe that they are preserving US jobs. They get their say. But they don't get their own facts, and I am not sure where the balance is there. Comment is invited on that point.

If they make statements that are literally ludicrous on a technical level, you can't quote those and then refute them, as people will quote the statements back at you. DNSSEC? No problem! Michael O'Leary says we'll think of something! So what if this is something that's been inching through committees for sixteen years? Not sure how to handle the frankly ridiculous. But I don't think we have to just regurgitate it in the name of NPOV. On the other hand, since there are now so few supporters, we should make an effort to quote some of the more intelligent.

Bottom line... just the freaking facts, ok? Elinruby (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That sums it up far better than I ever could.

24.11.87.186 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is unthinkable to me that the SOPA article should be anything but pure as the driven snow as far as neutral! Again, a precedent set is a forever thing...no going back and no reclaiming reputation. Forever burdened with having to take action on the next similar situation. I also agree that most legislators were unaware of the "devil in the details" in SOPA. I believe original intention was to address copyright violation. As with most legislation, it was not drawn up by the experts in the field, but by lawyers and lawmakers. I bet there are a lot of red faces on Capitol Hill right now...looking for an out. Lets give them their "out" to edit the Bill by educating them and not forcing them to dig in their heels. Certainly, any article found in Wikipedia must be neutral and credible at all times. Sorry, lost my signature in transit.. Petersontinam (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Suspending NPOV is suspending Wikipedia. You're going to tear an article out of Wikipedia in order to save Wikipedia? What's especially headshaking about "We had to destroy the village to save it" logic is that supposed friends of the village initiated REAL damage in order to battle HYPOTHETICAL enemy damage. If, with no small indulgence, it is granted the NPOV could potentially be suspended, it'd be when an authority has specially ordered Wikipedia to do something contrary to one of Wikipedia's pillar policies. This is not remotely close to such a case. Of all the oppressive regimes and illiberal legislation in the world, US legislation is Enemy #1? US legislation has required the placement of such a large amount of quality material in the public domain that it has practically built a good chunk of the Commons.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Ok, so I probably shouldn't have called this "suspension of NPOV" since I do not actually want to replace the article with a more slanted article, but with an op-ed (presented as such, not as an article!) detailing the harmful effects SOPA would have on Wikipedia.

Even less intrusive would be an ambox banner at the top featuring a link to Geoff Brigham's post as suggested below.

I think it would be good to let the public know that WMF/Wikipedia does have a stance on the issue. Pretending like we don't would be dishonest and a disservice both to our readers and to our project. --87.79.227.190 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

People in the WMF have a stance on the issue outside of Wikipedia. We, as editors of Wikipedia, do not have a collective position, but individual opinions that should be left out of articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

An op-ed is, definitionally, POV-pushing. That's what everybody is objecting to. Our job is not to convince people. It's to present them with the information. If your position is strong (it is), then you should focus solely on giving people information. That's what Wikipedia is about.

24.11.87.186 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. An op-ed is not POV pushing, it is openly and freely standing by the fact (!) that we as a project do have a particular point of view with regard to SOPA. --87.79.231.230 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

From WP:SOAP

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1]

Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

24.11.87.186 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

During the blackout that will likely occur, every article will include a banner with a link to an op ed on SOPA and how it affects Wikipedia, including this one. People come to this article because they want to learn a fair and neutral representation of the bill and what's good and bad about it. Besides that, Wikipedia's opinion of the bill is already represented quite clearly in protest section. Dcoetzee 13:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Discussion leaked into the article - January 15

In the section (Arguments in favor/Arguments against), someone wrote

The AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida, arguing in favor of SOPA, has stated that free speech was not a relevant consideration, because "The First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks."[27]

Which belongs to a discussion about the topic, not to the topic itself. I could think two counteraguments but that doesn't belong in there.If space for discussion is not provided INSIDE the article, this commentary is scoring a goal. If you want to keep it inside the article you could at least move it to a more appropriate section (like, "Arguments In favor"), but I feel it is a retort rather than an argument in itself (I still dont have a signature :p) 190.212.211.166 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for your post - actually agree - removed related text (& ref) in the main article - also, original text (& context?) suggests a somewhat different meaning than presented I would think - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

 Undone - I also agree, in part - it does appear as more of a retort than an argument, but that would be because a non-RS source was cited. I've added a little more context from a more accurate source, and replaced it. I also agree that it would be an appropriate addition to an "Arguments in favor" section, but I feel this highlights a larger problem with the For/Against format we are presently using in the article. That format doesn't allow for a cohesive discussion of the pros, cons, merits and nuanced arguments about each major concern (the Freedom of Speech/Censorship issue being one such concern). I see that similar "rebuttal content" exists in several other "Arguments against" sections, and I feel that completely scrubbing the content from the article is inappropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree Xeno. I'm actually a little disturbed that the material was just removed. Seriously. If we want to keep the For/Against format (not a big fan of it, personally), then we need to put the same headings under both, and present the arguments for each. A potential alternative is to just set up a section for each argument, and have the back and forth put in each heading.

24.11.87.186 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes - I also *completely agree* with Xenophrenic's improvements with this material - Updating/extending the text from a more accurate source (and related move) seems much better than the earlier (out-of-context?) presentation IMO - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer that was previously mentioned

An earlier question asking if there should be a disclaimer on this article depicting WMF's position was dismissed quickly. I think they had a good idea. But possibly intead of a disclaimer, there should be a banner at the top stating something like "WMF"s Stance on this Bill" which leads readers to a well crafted, informative page with a link to their local legislature. Even before there is any kind of black-out, soft black-out, etc. Petersontinam (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ha, I wrote up this before noticing you had brought up the exact same thing. Needless to say then, I strongly support this idea. --87.79.227.190 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Added the {{Selfref}} tag so it won't appear in the mirror sites (or possibly the printed version too). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good idea, thanks! --87.79.231.230 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

Short Forms for Legislative Materials: Federal Bill (unenacted)
Full Citation: “H.R. 3261, 112th Cong. (2011)”
Text: “House Bill 3261”
Short Citation: “H.R. 3261”
See The Bluebook R. 13.8 (19th ed. 2010), https://www.legalbluebook.com/ --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Importation of prescription drugs for personal use from foreign pharmacies (i.e., Canada) typically violates FDA and DEA statutes?

This article says it does: "Shipment of prescription drugs from foreign pharmacies to customers in the US typically violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act."

Sorry, however, it doesn't. [4]. At least not if it doesn't involved DEA-controlled substances (narcotics and things the DEA has control over). So yes, if you're trying to get codeine or Valium from Canada you're violating DEA law. But your prescription antihypertensive does not, so long as you have a doctor's prescription (and it can be a US doctor if the Canadian pharmacy accepts this, which is up to the pharmacy-- the same as if your doctor in one state writes a prescription for such a thing to a pharmacy in another-- again, this is not for DEA-controlled stuff). The FDA has full jurisdiction to look at such imports on a case-by-case basis, but it can block them, or it can pass them. Or it can require a letter from your doctor. Even if it blocks them, there are no legal penalties, since this is no more clearly illegal than if you went to Canada and bought a blood pressure pill and brought it home with you. This violates no clear law. Large amounts of drugs for resale are a different matter, but we're not discussing that, either.

Anyway, the blanket statement in this article is referenced by a news article which has no particular reason to have any legal expertise in the matter, and in any case conflates a number of different situations. Clearly US drug makers don't want people in the US to import the very same drugs from the very same companies that they buy them from in the US. Why? Because typically they charge 50% more to US customers in US pharmacies. This is a classic example of business writing laws to protect its own closed-market practices and profits from same. SBHarris 01:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)