GCN LAB IMPRESSIONS

What's wrong with SOPA: Here's one example

During its 24 hours of darkness in protest against Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), the English language version of Wikipedia greeted visitors with shadowy page opening up with: “Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge.”

As over-dramatic as that statement sounds, the bills as they were written would make it extremely difficult for a site like Wikipedia to stay up and running.

In order to avoid being liable for copyright infringement or intellectual property theft under SOPA, Wikipedians would have to check every single external link on their site to make sure that site isn’t hosting infringing material. If they did not maintain this vigilance, then according to the provisions of the bill, the site could be blocked or traffic could be routed away from it.

That is a lot of links to be constantly checking. New pages would probably never get added because they probably couldn’t spare the time to check their content and links in between checking the links of pages that are already up.

Sure, the chances of being shut down because of one link in a vast site such as Wikipedia are lower than an average citizen being caught cheating on his taxes a tiny bit. But, according to the bill, all it would take is one complaint to make it happen.

Wikipedia has been accumulating the world’s largest encyclopedia for about a decade now. It has always seemed to me to be a shining example of what the Internet could make when it set its mind to it, and it would be a shame if we had to say goodbye to it.

The protests have been heard, and Congress is backing away from the bills — in particular, the blocking and redirecting provisions. That is fortunate. The goal of combating online piracy is worthy, but the heavy-handed provisions in these bills could have been the death knell for Wikipedia and thousands of other valuable sites.


 

About the Author

Greg Crowe is a former GCN staff writer who covered mobile technology.

Reader Comments

Fri, Feb 17, 2012

haha, you lost.

Mon, Jan 23, 2012

How about when a federal website has a consumer related link that no longer goes to the consumer site but instead goes to a piracy site? I tried a link on the FTC site about a year ago, and it took me to a new site sharing videos. Under the proposed law the FTC would be liable for the actions of the URL squatter.

Mon, Jan 23, 2012 AnnoyedYoutuber

Why? why do they have to shut down all these sites? if they close youtube then they would be putting a hell of a lot of people out of a job! And don't hate on the chick who wants the internet to still be entertaining.

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 SoutheastUS

Derek: The whole point of wide open editing of Wikipedia is so that mistakes and errors and mis-truths can be corrected. The fact that William Connolley got away with his campaign just shows that, on that particular subject, those who sided with him were probably the only ones actively looking at it. Anybody else who cared probably just did not want to waste their time trying to "fix" the information.

Thu, Jan 19, 2012

How great it would be to BLACK out Congress and the Senate to get things done!!!!!

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above