Food & Drink1 min ago
Wlkipedia
40 Answers
Gone on strike effectively to two bills going through the US Congress.
Just the English Channel down, the French etc is running....
Views?
Why should they pull the plug on international operations.....isn't it a bit arrogant to do this re their users and advertisers?
Just the English Channel down, the French etc is running....
Views?
Why should they pull the plug on international operations.....isn't it a bit arrogant to do this re their users and advertisers?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To me it sounds like the ones supporting this these bills are the ones with the mega bucks and we all know that money means power... so to my basic little brain, I don't think these bills are good for everyone, they are just good for the companies with lots of money to enforce them. I think that vastly overly simplified on my part but I re-read the link I put up and yeah, GO WIKKI! :c)
All our avatars contain artwork which is probably someones copyright. The original artist is not receiving any fees for our blatant stealing. If SOPA was passed, the photographer who snapped my grinning dog avatar could object, and the all of Answerbank could be shutdown.
When any of us publish websites, blogs or even post on a site like this, we do so knowing that anyone can copy it. We take that risk and accept it could happen. The people who are pushing for this bill have something to lose. They have a lot of money and can lobby for new laws that will affect every internet user in the world. Unfortunately, they cannot uninvent technology, and their attempts to closedown large sections of the web will not work. Instead of spending so much time, effort and money killing the internet, they should be spending time, effort and money embrassing it. It is the future, so they are likely to make lots of money if they would only come out of the 20th Century.
When any of us publish websites, blogs or even post on a site like this, we do so knowing that anyone can copy it. We take that risk and accept it could happen. The people who are pushing for this bill have something to lose. They have a lot of money and can lobby for new laws that will affect every internet user in the world. Unfortunately, they cannot uninvent technology, and their attempts to closedown large sections of the web will not work. Instead of spending so much time, effort and money killing the internet, they should be spending time, effort and money embrassing it. It is the future, so they are likely to make lots of money if they would only come out of the 20th Century.
China - whilst I appreciate your cynicism and yes I have a certain sympathy, the 1st Amendment will kill this, or rather the Supreme Court testing it against the 1st. Look how libel cases do not stack up over there viz. the cases and payouts over there.
What is perhaps needed is a global accord on IP and Copyright ownership...that is so weak in so many areas. The chances of that though.... there is an enormous amount of fuzzy areas to clean up that it will be wrapped up for years. For example, I can take a poem and add/subtract words from it and that becomes effectively mine as to copyright and, of course, I have no rights on replicating the original without acknowledgement (wit The Apotheosis or Mad 50s)........is that fair, probably no, but it goes on everyday
What is perhaps needed is a global accord on IP and Copyright ownership...that is so weak in so many areas. The chances of that though.... there is an enormous amount of fuzzy areas to clean up that it will be wrapped up for years. For example, I can take a poem and add/subtract words from it and that becomes effectively mine as to copyright and, of course, I have no rights on replicating the original without acknowledgement (wit The Apotheosis or Mad 50s)........is that fair, probably no, but it goes on everyday
Does it really matter? Because can the information one obtains from Wikipedia be trusted to be the correct information.
http://library.thinkq.../Wikipedia_trust.html
http://library.thinkq.../Wikipedia_trust.html
It wasn't just Wiki that supported the 'black out' protests.....
http://imgur.com/a/MSHhB/
I use a lot of US based sites and the trickle down effect of not just SOPA but also PIPA would/could effect every internet user....see Chris' example on page one of this thread.
Lisa x
http://imgur.com/a/MSHhB/
I use a lot of US based sites and the trickle down effect of not just SOPA but also PIPA would/could effect every internet user....see Chris' example on page one of this thread.
Lisa x
From the link I previously posted, explained in layman's terms. (FFXIAH site is one I use for an online game I play)
http://www.ffxiah.com.../28155/sopa-and-pipa/
««« SOPA and PIPA essentially remove the Safe Harbor provision. In other words, if one of you decides to link to copyrighted content on our forum, we are now directly and personally responsible, and can theoretically be sued for copyright violation as though we were the ones doing it ourselves. Similarly, if a site we link to (like wikia) decides to violate copyright, we can also be held responsible just for linking to them.
Worse, the bills remove the requirement to even take us to court. Copyright holders themselves (private entities) can now go straight to the internet's DNS authorities (the master address listing for all sites on the web) and file a complaint. This will immediately knock FFXIAH.com offline without so much as a court ruling. It's then incumbent upon us to fight back in court and earn the right to bring the site back.
Copyright holders argue this is necessary because they lose money for every second a site is allowed to link to, or feature, copyrighted content. They argue they need ultimate power to knock sites off the internet immediately, and only deal with the burden of proof later.
They promise to only use their new powers "sparingly" and "responsibly." I'm sure you can all guess how that one will end.
---------------------------
This makes the internet a very dangerous place to operate. Google could be held responsible for returning links to any sites that could even possibly feature copyrighted content. (Which is most of them.) We could be forced to pre-censor all forum and user content for copyright violations before we could even put them online. Arguably, MMO's couldn't even allow users to speak freely in chat, as they might mention something copyrighted, which would make the MMO companies themselves legally responsible, and capable of being knocked offline without trial at the first complaint. Sites like Wikipedia, which are based entirely on user content, probably couldn't operate at all due to the inherent dangers. The effects would be widespread and very chilling to how the internet operates. »»»
http://www.ffxiah.com.../28155/sopa-and-pipa/
««« SOPA and PIPA essentially remove the Safe Harbor provision. In other words, if one of you decides to link to copyrighted content on our forum, we are now directly and personally responsible, and can theoretically be sued for copyright violation as though we were the ones doing it ourselves. Similarly, if a site we link to (like wikia) decides to violate copyright, we can also be held responsible just for linking to them.
Worse, the bills remove the requirement to even take us to court. Copyright holders themselves (private entities) can now go straight to the internet's DNS authorities (the master address listing for all sites on the web) and file a complaint. This will immediately knock FFXIAH.com offline without so much as a court ruling. It's then incumbent upon us to fight back in court and earn the right to bring the site back.
Copyright holders argue this is necessary because they lose money for every second a site is allowed to link to, or feature, copyrighted content. They argue they need ultimate power to knock sites off the internet immediately, and only deal with the burden of proof later.
They promise to only use their new powers "sparingly" and "responsibly." I'm sure you can all guess how that one will end.
---------------------------
This makes the internet a very dangerous place to operate. Google could be held responsible for returning links to any sites that could even possibly feature copyrighted content. (Which is most of them.) We could be forced to pre-censor all forum and user content for copyright violations before we could even put them online. Arguably, MMO's couldn't even allow users to speak freely in chat, as they might mention something copyrighted, which would make the MMO companies themselves legally responsible, and capable of being knocked offline without trial at the first complaint. Sites like Wikipedia, which are based entirely on user content, probably couldn't operate at all due to the inherent dangers. The effects would be widespread and very chilling to how the internet operates. »»»
AOG
Admittedly this study is from 2005, but found that Wikipedia is just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
As with any reference material, it is always better for verify it with another source. Because it is online, it is open to malicious vandalism. However, most of those get quickly corrected.
There have been times when spurious data has been added to pages that normally will not get many hits, but will get a lot of hits in a short time. Such an instance was when the musician Ronnie Hazlehurst died. A chart hit was bogusly attributed to him. The wrong data was there only a couple of hours before it was corrected, but in that two hours, many national newspapers copied the lie and printed it.
But on the whole, Wikipedia is as accurate and trustworthy as any published encyclopedia.
Admittedly this study is from 2005, but found that Wikipedia is just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
As with any reference material, it is always better for verify it with another source. Because it is online, it is open to malicious vandalism. However, most of those get quickly corrected.
There have been times when spurious data has been added to pages that normally will not get many hits, but will get a lot of hits in a short time. Such an instance was when the musician Ronnie Hazlehurst died. A chart hit was bogusly attributed to him. The wrong data was there only a couple of hours before it was corrected, but in that two hours, many national newspapers copied the lie and printed it.
But on the whole, Wikipedia is as accurate and trustworthy as any published encyclopedia.
Gromit
/// But teacher, journalists and other professional researchers offer this advice: Don't rely exclusively on Wikipedia for crucial information used to make a health decision, write a story for publication, or to pad that next midterm paper. ///
Source 'Live Science'.
These findings do not instil much confidence in Wikipedia either:
http://www.guardian.c...t/24/comment.newmedia
/// But teacher, journalists and other professional researchers offer this advice: Don't rely exclusively on Wikipedia for crucial information used to make a health decision, write a story for publication, or to pad that next midterm paper. ///
Source 'Live Science'.
These findings do not instil much confidence in Wikipedia either:
http://www.guardian.c...t/24/comment.newmedia
Using any source on its own in exclusion to anything else is almost invariably a bad idea for the very same reason. Personally, I think Wikipedia's a useful starting point - especially if you're seeking further reading on something. I often don't read articles and just skip to the bibliography/reference section.
AOG
I have not verified what I think Joint Enterprise is by a single source nevermind two. I told you MY interpretation though that is as a layman and not someone who is legally trained. I gave a scenario which showed how two similar crimes could be a single persons fault or could be a group fault (or Joint Enterprise) depending on the groups motive before the crime.
You have a different interpretation. Would you care to explain it.
I have not verified what I think Joint Enterprise is by a single source nevermind two. I told you MY interpretation though that is as a layman and not someone who is legally trained. I gave a scenario which showed how two similar crimes could be a single persons fault or could be a group fault (or Joint Enterprise) depending on the groups motive before the crime.
You have a different interpretation. Would you care to explain it.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.