Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act

Weasel Words in Intro

Just as a quick note, the use of the word "even" in the openning paragraphs-

Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions would include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would even make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a felony. The bill even gives immunity to Internet services that take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.

seem like it's injecting an unneeded sense of incredulity into the article, which sort of skews it in one direction. The following paragraph also seems less than ideal, though the phrasing sort of weasels in both direction at once.

96.238.166.239 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Entertainment Industry Campaign Financing

I don't understand why this was deleted. It seems important to note that a lot of the politicians supporting SOPA had their campaigns financed to a large degree by the entertainment industries. Opensecrets.org is a reliable source and they have information on each of the politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not have a chance to look at either what you put in or the comment when the other editor took it out but I suspect he would say something about your sources. Try to find a newspaper article that says this, is my suggestion. I have gone through the campaign finance databases (check out Obama! much as I worked for the man's campaign, that's ugly...) and so I agree, yes, this is a fact and it is true. But this is also wikipedia where the rule is that we do not do original research, we collate research by others that is thought to be reliable. I do not know if anyone has tried to use a campaign finance database as a source before. You might look through the reliable source noticeboard. Here are some older links that might help or at least give you a place to start. I need to work on the technical section and have said I'll flesh out the legalese section if nobody else steps up, so I can't do this right now:

• http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
• http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151493/us_doj_copyright_protection_bill_is_flawed.html
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html

This is inane. OpenSecrets.org is far more reliable than a newspaper source. News reporters use OpenSecrets as a source on a routine basis. Black Max (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Black Max

Fact is fact and i wonder why Wikipedia, a site that prides itself on reliability and truthfullness, chooses to ignore original research on such a technicality even if it completely proves or disproves an article. If "notable" research showed that water doesn't exist, would that be taken as fact by Wikipedia due to this? If this really is a rule then it should be reviewed and possibly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.155 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Dude, WP doesn't use original research, period. Black Max (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Black Max

List of Opponents is incomplete

Both ACLU and Brookings Institution have taken official positions against this bill: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3859 and http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx I would like to add them to the list, but the article is semi-locked, so I can't (yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heppet (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Brookings Institution doesn't actually take official positions, the link is to an article by Alan A. Friedman who is a Brookings fellow but doesn't speak on behalf of the institute. Furthermore, his article doesn't state that he is officially against the bill but rather he highlights potential risks of the bill and states "policymakers are encouraged to analyze the net benefits of these bills in light of the increased cybersecurity risks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.16.56 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrible and Biased Article, are the authors even qualified?

PhD Computer Scientist here. This article lacks a discussion of the DNS -- which is simultaneously alarming and indicative that the authors are woefully unqualified. Concerned this article is written by proponents of the bill with little to no understanding of internet technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Many Internet security experts are highly concerned about DNS filtering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System http://blog.eset.com/2011/11/15/sopa-and-pipa-and-dns-an-open-letter-to-congress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.21.2 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by another guy:

There's a problem with the title I section:

"Internet service providers would be required to modify their DNS look-up servers to return an empty response for these sites, making them virtually inaccessible,"

Removing a DNS entry does not make them virtually inaccessible at all. It just makes you know a set of numbers (that looks like 111.222.233.244) rather than a set of characters (like foosite.com). It's a tad more difficult to communicate, but far from impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpemmons (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Many sites do not work properly when they are accessed by their IP addresses, especially if authentication is required, due to the bare URL redirect and HTTPS use on the sites.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As Jasper mentioned, many sites need Host: headers in their HTTP requests to function properly. Of course this could be fixed by editing the system's host file, or connecting to a foreign DNS server (if allowed), but both of these solutions are impractical, and for the average user are not possible, making sites "virtually" inaccessible. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your help. Please also see the related discussion at Protect IP Act where I have been fighting a battle against many small stupid technical flaws that keep being re-added, links that resolve, descriptions of the workings of DNS attributed to lawyers and the like -- that article is the subject of a current post at the Reliable Source noticeboard where well-intentioned non-technical reviewers seem to have decided that a CISSP is an expert in this topic but Dan Kaminsky and Paul Vixie (a co-author of BIND) are not. Help help help. Please. Seriously :) LOL. Elinruby (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research

I removed this line: "The bill is consistent with constitutional rights to due process by incorporating comprehensive notice provisions and including by reference Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – the same federal protection found in all U.S. civil litigation in federal court." as a clear violation of WP:OR.

The whole rest of the page seems like it was written solely by supporters of the bill. About 98% of the "Supporters and opposition" section is devoted to the supporters, with one sentence at the end devoted to the opposition. I think this needs to be evened out some. Information on this can be found here and here, with multiple more information links to be found in each. Not saying that I won't do it, but it's there for anyone else who wants to add any in. Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bill name

H.R. 3261 has not been renamed to the "E-PARASITE Act." Its short title is the "Stop Online Piracy Act." The official bill text confirms this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

This article should be moved back under the title "Stop Online Piracy Act." Hartboy (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The one reference cited in support of the "E-PARASITE" nickname merely says "is also known as". I moved the article back to the bill's proper name as it appears in actual legitimate documentation. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

pov tag

• In addition to the discrepancy in coverage noted below, the word "rogue" is not neutral and should be avoided. I'd consider it a fair description of a site proven to engage in these activities, but the bill does not require that. Yes, I realize that the legislation uses the term and that some of the media coverage has unquesioningly accepted it, but that doesn't mean that wikipedia should. So far this administration's copyright initiatives have shut down many sites that were completely legal and there is no reason to think that giving them more power will make them more careful. Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

ok -- there *used* to be a section below from another user saying that the article had vastly more enunciation of the position of bill advocates than of its opponents'. This seems to have been lost in the page move. It is still however an issue. Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• also needs to be addressed: "attempts to protect America’s military, police, and the public by deterring counterfeiting through increasing penalties for counterfeiting goods or intended for" --> why not just say "would increase penalties"? Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats not a neutrality issue. Thats a summarizing issue. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Let's get Mom and apple pie in there too while we are at it ;) Do you agree the second version is better? Elinruby (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving here for discussion: "H.R 3261 attempts to protect America’s military, police, and the public by deterring counterfeiting through increasing penalties for counterfeiting goods or services intended for the military, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure applications, illegal medicines, or goods that cause serious bodily harm or death." There are already a LOT of clarification needed statements in this tiny section. In addition to the issue raised above, I thought the counterfeit drugs were in Title I? Needs verification, sourcing, attribution, all that fun stuff.Elinruby (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The ending of the first paragraph (this bill “modernizes United States criminal and civil statutes to meet new IP enforcement challenges and protect American jobs.”) is clearly slanted towards proponents of the bill. I suggest changing it to something along the lines of "the intention of the bill ..." or "according to ..." Karategeek6 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I called weasel and removed it. I think that the sentence earlier in the paragraph mentioning advocates' jobs claim adequately summarizes the little information provided by the quote. I'll start a separate section in case anyone would like to discuss.Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

article is largely a paraphrase of the legislation

Some secondary sources are needed and the language needs to be simpler, clearer, and to actually say something. Elinruby (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

the proposed overturn of safe harbor needs discussion and also the criminalization of streaming

These are very notable points that are not covered except in the ambiguous "increased penalties for certain especially dangerous acts of counterfeiting, economic espionage, and willfully infringing copyrights by streaming." Is "especially dangerous acts" a description of "infringing copyrights by streaming"? Sentence construction appears to say that all streaming violates copyright. Whether this is intentional or not it should be addressed. The effect on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are also pertinent. The fact that this would overturn Viacom's recent loss in court is worth at least a footnote imho Elinruby (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

fact tag in content section

I added it because I have not seen the statement anywhere else that these sites would be eligible for seizure if they were under US jurisdiction, and if it's a reference to Operation in our Sites, the legality of of these seizures is in question. At a minimum a link to the legislation text would be nice, plus some secondary sources supporting the above statement. Elinruby (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

this article is the subject of a post at Wikipedia:NPOVN

as discussion does not seem to be taking place on this page.... Elinruby (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

American Censorship Day

I moved the following content here for review:

November 16, the day US Congress held hearings on the bill, was dubbed by many opposition groups including the Free Software Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge, the "American Censorship Day". Many opposing services, such as search engine DuckDuckGo and social feed site reddit have placed black banners over their site logos with the words "NO CENSORSHIP", in protest of the bill.

The first sentence is sourced to a non-reliable source (Pemkot?), and the rest is primary-sourced to a new advocacy website. Has there been coverage of this by legitimate sources that we can cite? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the first sentence: bloomberg, newyorker (brief). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding it back. Tumblr, DuckDuckGo, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, reddit, TechDirt, 4chan the Free Software Foundation and Students for Free Culture are all participants in this. It's valid, and I'll cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContinueWithCaution (talk • contribs)

Summary

The summary in the info box could be revised to be a little clearer. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I worked on it a bit. Please feel free to take it further. Time is an issue for me. Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversial House Judiciary Committee Hearing on SOPA

Would it be possible to include a section about the extremely lopsided, and arguably controversial, hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on SOPA? I believe it merits inclusion in the article due to the nature of the hearing. King Arthur6687 (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any actual reliable sources that cover the topic? Preferably a journalistic source, rather than a commentary/opinion/advocacy source? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not too many, as big visual content is a supporter of this bill, and would stay away from covering its ramifications. It's clear that the ramifications on the page *do* exist (I would say google, yahoo, etc are reliable sources), I added more sources and re-added that section. Instead of removing large sections citing lack of sources, I'm sure sources could easily be found, or the {{Citation needed}} could be used until another editor cited the section. The way sections are being removed now seem to add a lot more pro-bill bias to the article, which is unacceptable. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 11:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In the battle between "big visual content", as you call it, and "big pirate" (or "big tech nerd"?), I'm sure each side will emphasize the strengths in their positions while minimizing the deficiencies. We should avoid citing sources that themselves have taken a firm stand on one side or the other of the issue, except as necessary to illustrate an expressed opinion. We definitely shouldn't cite "tweets" as a source for an assertion of fact (and I have removed such). There are some news sources that meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements and have tried to report on all sides of the issue, and those are the ones we should be using. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ars Technica has covered the hearing. I am sure there are others, but that's one I noticed and it's a good online tech magazine and an umimpeachable reliable source as far as I know. Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Or there is this: "if you were watching the House hearing on SOPA Wednesday morning, you'd hardly guess there were so many concerned parties. The Judiciary Committee set up a mockery of an open debate by stacking the witness deck."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/16/BUO81M043R.DTL#ixzz1e272IsV5

Neutrality tag

Wording needs fundamental reworking - contains weasel words insinuating the motives of the bill are positive, when the media coverage (exploding in the last 24 hours), is painting a picture where serious ramifications are being brought up by individuals in the tech industry. Also, the little box in the corner gives undue weight to idea that these legislative ideas are positive. Until the page and introductory paragraph is properly updated with ALL perspectives being covered in the mainstream media in legitimate publications, this tag must stay up to make readers of this article aware there may be a bias. This expansion will need to take place over the next few weeks as the issue is under scrutiny by the mainstream media, please do what you can to help improve the page. Sloggerbum (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Long Title" is taken direct from the final bill submission. As for the bill summary - that is presently taken from the crafters of the bill. The bill is obviously controversial, and there have been criticisms raised - some with more merit than others. The summary section in the info box doesn't appear to be the proper venue to debate those criticisms. The present summary is taken from this introduction to the bill, although this summary was also produced by the drafters of the legislation. Of course the proposers of the bill aren't going to outline the potential flaws in their summary description. Can you suggest some high quality, impartial and uninvolved sources covering the issue that we can use for our article, or do you think it is still too recent? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case I do believe both the title and summary are appropriate, as described in the actual legislation. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 11:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Which summary were you looking at? I had edited it to something more neutral, but it's been changed back to quoting the legislation on on itself. Surely there is a policy on this? I am pretty sure that the question will have arisen before. If that policy says that we should use the bill's description of its motives, then let me tell ya, wikipedia, there's this bridge I own in Brooklyn.... can we at least get some quotes markson that? Elinruby (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I went and looked at the template page. It seemed to imply that the summary should be written by the editors. However, I noticed while I was there that there is a template specifically for US legislation (vs. some other country) so I switched to that one instead. It does not have a summary entry. If someone wants to modify the template I am open to it having one, but I don't feel up to making the attempt just now. Elinruby (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby, Xenophrenic, and C_(u)w_(t) - I'm out for most of the day and so wish I could be more immediately helpful, but if one of you has time today to spend an hour(s) aligning the intro the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (which states "[The intro] should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies,") that would go far. Over 60,000 people used this page as a resource yesterday, and so the improvement would be serving thousands upon thousands of people in the near future. I'll respond in more detail in a few minutes, afk Sloggerbum (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Lead has changed several times in the last few hours, and I see no neutrality problems with the revised version. Sopher99 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I do (assuming I am looking at the same version you were). It definitely doesn't mention any controversies for one thing. Doesn't mention that it makes streaming video a felony for another. I need to be afk about an hour. If nobody else has tackled this when I get back I will give it a shot. But I'll need help keeping it from changing back. (Note - no issue with anyone editing my work to improve it, but the article keeps being edited back to a paraphrase of the legislation, and THAT's an issue.)Elinruby (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

Can 4chan be added to oppision? It was featured on http://americancensorship.org/ and is the 3rd screen shotted image down the page.

92.25.133.253 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. I feel 4chan is notable enough to added. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 04:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's notable, I agree. But what did you use for a source? I assure you that someone (not me) will dispute it and remove it if it's not footnoted to an unimpeachable reliable source. I don't have time to look for one right now and I feel the statement is accurate, so I am leaving it, personally. But word to the wise, you should start looking for mention of it on CNET or something if you want the mention to stay in. I assume that you guys can find the list of criteria for a reliable source unassisted. ;) Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait though, maybe this falls under an exception about quoting people about their opinions. I am working on the lead and am keeping an eye out for outside mentions of 4chan support though, as this would save everyone some tedious discussion. If I find one I'll add it but just now I have little time. Elinruby (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's gone, by the way. I can't put it back in without fighting to get that americancensorship.org website recognized as reliable, and since it's new and an advocacy site, that probably won't happen even if I do. I see the mentions on twitter but that's not usually a source, esp if the account is a pseudonym. The links to YouTube have the same problem. I have seen a couple of people add mentions of Anonymous support to the article, which get deleted. That totally requires a source, since Anonymous is ... anonymous. So what I am saying is that I think it's important enough to be in there but somebody needs to find a mainstream media article that says so. Doesn't matter whether you or I agree with that. I can't go to bat for something with no source. Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words removed from lead

I took out "this bill "modernizes [United States] criminal and civil statutes to meet new IP enforcement challenges and protect American jobs."". Before I did, I edited in a "supporters say" statement that included the jobs claim, the only actual information in this verbiage. Elinruby (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Somebody called cnet an unreliable source

I'm assuming that this was an accident or somebody's strange joke, so I removed the tag. Please discuss here otherwise. CNET is a well-known online publication with a good reputation. That particular article has been cited many times in other coverage. Elinruby (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about section 103

I don't think this sentence actually says anything?:

Section 103 encourages and provides a framework for rightsholder victims of infringing sites, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services to work together to take away the financial incentive for these websites to operate, without the need for government intervention.

0h my bad, that's the part about not needing a pesky day in court. I'll add that into the next sentence. Please comment if you disagree. Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I won't, because the next sentence says "Under section 103, there is a two-step process based loosely on the notice-and-takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to seek limited injunctive relief against Internet sites dedicated to theft of U.S. intellectual property." No sourcing. The statement contradicts all the legal observers out there saying it *does away* with notice-and-takedown; heck, we quote a *sponsor* as saying so. That's pretty fast and loose alright. Needs attribution at a minimum, OR and incorrect OR as it stands. Elinruby (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"If the site that was the subject of a notification provides a counter-notification, then the instruction to a payment network provider or Internet advertising service to suspend services to the site is lifted and the rights-holder can pursue its claim in court." -- also unsourced, unattributed, in my opinion wrong -- the doctorow piece says the onus is on the website to prove innocence.

Removed "without requiring a prescription or where the drugs are adulterated or misbranded." -- seeing mentions that being a foreign website is assumed to mean the drugs are counterfeit. Can't find a reliable source either way, need help with this if someone has time. Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

gotta go, fixed a lot, leaving two big problems

Free speech -- unsourced statements, help appreciated. EFF is good for arab spring if nothing else found but let's give them a break. The whistleblower reference is to a case involving insecure election machines, I can source it in 10 minutes when I get back, if you are here before I do please feel free to do it for me

DNS explanation needed for Technical concerns. Elinruby (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I still think the word rogue should only be used in the context of a quote rather than used in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I noted elsewhere, perhaps above, all definitions of the word are derogatory. Elinruby (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing of recent additions

I've removed the "E-PARASITE" line cited to the "opencongress" Wiki; the nickname isn't mentioned in that 'source', and also appears to only be used trivially by bill detractors. Definitely not WP:LEDE material, if warranted at all. Trimmed external links section containing various commentary articles, including removal of a link to a protest petition site (See WP:ELNO, number 4). If there is usable information in links you add to the External Links section, please consider incorporating that info in our article. Reworded the lead to more closely conform to the information in the cited sources. Removed "prevented from passing" text from lede, as it isn't supported by the cited source (its status is actually "pending"), and is inappropriate in the lede anyway ... it's a different bill. Consider drawing comparisons in the body of this article, and include the status of the bill there. Removed the "The bill would remove the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)" assertion of fact from the lede - this bill doesn't "remove" provisions from another bill (nor does the cited source say it does) -- actual DMCA-related concerns should be expanded in the appropriate section. Moved punctuation before the citations (instead of after), per MOS. Corrected link entitled "Why Start-ups Are Scared of SOPA"; it actually went to an itworld.com article -- neither of which support the assertion of fact: "The bill would make social websites that host user content, such as YouTube, Tumblr and Facebook, responsible for ensuring that their users do not post infringing material." Removed that as unsupported pending reliable sources. Removed "DNSSEC" reference from the text cited to the "Andrew Lee" source - perhaps it is in a different source? Removed "Maxine Waters" text cited only to a tweet for obvious reasons (and as explained above). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• re lead and cited sources, ref#4 talks about revenue *losses* but ok, that's a bit picky. If you really want to turn it around ("protect revenue") which I guess I would if I had your point of view, how about finding a cite for an industry rep getting quoted that way? Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• "protects the intellectual property market" -- for readability's sake would like to make this "protects intellectual property", market doesn't seem to add much and the other changes make the lead kinda dense. I may have other similar comments in a few.
• "The bill is intended to expand the ability of" -- can this become "The bill expands the power of"? More readable, still seems neutral, still seems true.
• resultant --> resulting. Please? Best practice for readability is to use the Anglo-Saxon word usually.

Where to begin :) Let me go look at the backup I made and see how much of that I can agree with. The punctuation, I am sure you are probably right about -- refernce format may also need work. Meanwhile please document which "various commentary sites" you removed from external links, as some of them were from acknowledged experts and that could be courteous, keeping me from having to fish around in the page history. I disagree with the protest petition site removal; it's notable due to sheer numbers and isn't being used to prove anything but its own existence. Please put it back. The problem with links you mention may be a cut and paste error on my part. I will go look. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you right-click on the "History" tab at the top of the article page, then click on the word "prev" where it says (cur | prev) immediately to the left of the article version you'd like to view, you can bring up the article exactly as you left it. I hope that helps. As for the protest petition, that is already described in the body of the article — further promoting the issue in Wikipedia by external linking the advocacy website is prohibited. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

where is it in the body? If so I missed it.Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the body of the article on the *Senate* bill. Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I know how to do it! But thanks. I just don't think I should have to. Not routinely anyway, and not to see changes from an experienced user. Please document your changes. You are not some IP address wandering through. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I did document my changes (see the big paragraph just above). Links were removed per WP:EL, and that is documented -- and I've also explained how you can review changes in exact, minute detail. Requests for additional courtesies are usually better received when accompanied by courtesy extended.

Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Trimmed external links section containing various commentary articles" doesn't tell me what you deleted but thas' ok, it's all good, I'll just get it out of history again...Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

oh and about Protect IP, a hold does effectively prevent the Senate from passing the bill. It may seem strange but it's true. The bill's status will remain "pending" until the clock runs out or the hold is removed. I'll replace the text and add in the wikilink to the hold article that explains this.Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Best done in the Protect IP Act article, however. I'd also have no objection to having it in the body of this article if a comparitive treatment is to be given. Also, could you review this source, and let me know if you see any factual inaccuracies in how it describes the different sections of the bill? I'm sure there are concerns about the various provisions that are not covered in that source, but I'd like to use it to flesh out the "contents" section of our article where there are presently several "citation needed" tags. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I just want to somehow convey briefly that there is a House bill and a Senate bill and they will need to both pass then be reconciled, etc. Mention of a Senate bill should include a mention of its status methinks. Brief mention preferably Actual wording negotiable as long as it's accurate. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in a second. Offhand, PC World usually ok (at least on technical topics).

Oh hey it's Grant Gross, didn't know this was an IDG site. Ya, he's a careful reporter, and I am sure he got the sections correctly summarized. Looks fine. I actually also think this may be a better source for the immunity than what is there, both language and ref bothered me there as I recall.Elinruby (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

outdent, moved list of deletions from above to allow reply:

• Removed the "The bill would remove the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)" assertion of fact from the lede - this bill doesn't "remove" provisions from another bill (nor does the cited source say it does) -- actual DMCA-related concerns should be expanded in the appropriate section.

that's pretty picky. It makes them not be in effect. Renders quaint? Abolishes? And it was in the lead as a a stunningly important effect of the bill. It affect almost everyone in Silicon Valley at a minimum, so I think it belongs in the lead. Will come back to this

That's pretty picky? You betcha; text cited to a source needs to be supported by that source. It's a basic tenet of editing Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

moved the above comment here from the punctuation bullet point. Pretty sure you meant to put it here. If not please explain. I was talking about "remove" vs "renders obsolete" or whatever language might be better. DCMA needs to be in there and sure it needs to be sourced; I suggest we work on sections right now tho as a couple of them have big holes. Elinruby (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Moved punctuation before the citations (instead of after), per MOS.

sounds fine, sure. Thanks

• Corrected link entitled "Why Start-ups Are Scared of SOPA"; it actually went to an itworld.com article --

it goes to inc.com now,which was where it was supposed to go. I will take your word that it didn't, esp since I was in fact looking at ITworld...

• neither of which support the assertion of fact: "The bill would make social websites that host user content, such as YouTube, Tumblr and Facebook, responsible for ensuring that their users do not post infringing material." Removed that as unsupported pending reliable sources.

shrug, don't remember what the other source was that was there but secondary sources for this are thick on the ground, sure, np

• Removed "DNSSEC" reference from the text cited to the "Andrew Lee" source - perhaps it is in a different source?

not sure. This was there and I worked around it as it looked plausible. Getting to Technical concerns section now so I'll address. Thanks.

• Removed "Maxine Waters" text cited only to a tweet for obvious reasons (and as explained above).

meh. She probably did say it; I looked for another source for this and did not find one, but I did learn that she really really likes the phrase "unintended consequences." However, ok, it's a tweet that claims to quote someone and EFF or not I kinda agree that that is kinda weak. The quote was semi-technical too, so there are almost certainly better references for whatever the claim was, will have to look. Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

urgent: serious problem in lead

"while making liable for damages any copyright holder who misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement." I am pretty sure this is wrong and I do not see it in the article. Fatigue may however be the problem there and I appreciate you discussing the source with me. Please address this. I think the liability is the current situation and goes away if the bill passes. Let me see if I can find you a source on that. The rest of the third paragraph is a bit unwieldy but better than what we had, other changes to it will probably take the form of suggestions for readability. Elinruby (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I see it in the article now. It's there but you left out the word "knowingly" and that's critical. Because the site owner has to prove it and the copyright holder can just say whoops, my bad. Not sure how to fix this. I think I should remove it for now. I will leave the rest of the paragraph for now as its problems are not factual Elinruby (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: "while making liable for damages any copyright holder who misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement"

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

we can always of course add the knowingly in, but the burden of proof may have changed so far MSM doesn't seemed to have noticed that. Bear with me a few hours, k? Elinruby (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Added "knowingly". If the bill subsequently changes, we can amend it here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

fair enough as a stopgap. We do need something about the burden of proof and I saw that somewhere last night, but I really had to go for a while. I will come back to it. As it stands right now the article needs, to my eyes, a discussion of the DNS issues, work on the different sections of the law, and some more quotes from the sponsors and advocates of the bill. To be honest, Goodlatte's comments are more likely to be read if you shorten them, but I left them as they were because I thought you might object and besides, now we have somewhat more text from opponents. I have references open for the law sections and can work on that a bit if you want to find some RS pro-SOPA quotes. Just suggesting this so we don't edit-conflict each other. Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Deep packet inspection

Until just now there was a bit in the lead section about SOPA requiring ISPs to perform deep packet inspection. It is not mentioned in the article body.

The cited reliable source does not say exactly that SOPA mandates deep packet inspection. It says it would require ISPs to examine traffic in a similar manner to deep packet inspection. Here's what the source says:

In addition to domain-name filtering, SOPA would impose an open-ended obligation on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to prevent access to infringing sites. This means that SOPA would impose an unprecedented responsibility on ISPs to scrutinize and screen all user traffic. Preventing access to specific sites would require ISPs to inspect all the Internet traffic of its entire user base -- the kind of privacy-invasive monitoring that has come under fire in the context of "deep packet inspection" for advertising purposes.

Should we introduce the concept of deep packet inspection in this article relative to SOPA? Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic moved it down the page and I had other fish to fry at that moment (see above). I think ContinueWithCaution (sp?) then removed it; I just left a request on his user page for his reasons, ie no, the article does not explicitly say that each http packet will be examined, or use the phrase. But the above paragraph is a functional description of deep packet inspection, assuming that in fact it is true that the bill requires ISPs to keep their users from connecting to infringing sites. That's the part *I* am not sure of, as I had not seen the claim elsewhere. But the authors are lawyers and tech lawyers at that. You *would* need to look at every packet, and I think every field of every header, to be sure of preventing users from doing anything infringing. I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time reading wireshark captures. If you think the terminology leads us into distracting byways, I don't insist on it although I think it is correct. How about "would require ISPs to inspect all the internet traffic of its entire user base?" Elinruby (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, if I completely misunderstand the question, please rephrase. :P Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, just noticed that CNET has written this up using the deep packet inspection terminology so.... any reason not re-add this? Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss it, we should tell the reader about it in the article body. After that is done, we should summarize the body text in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

alright, thanks. That's more or less what CwC said, that he hadn't seen it but if I was sure...hadn't done it as I was wondering if the term itself was confusing or you were just questioning it because the Atlantic didn't use the term. Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that bit into the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How long for a bill to pass into law?

I'm ignorant of the legal system of the US so I need to know if this bill is passed smoothly when is the nearest date for it to become an effective law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.20.18 (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in a committee. The next step would be for it to go to the House. The Senate has a similar bill, which Ron Wyden prevented the Senate from voting on. For it to become law the House has to pass a bill, the Senate has to pass its bill, then the president has to sign it. A date depends on many factors. They were trying to fast-track it, I think. The fast-track may not happen now but this is still pending. hth Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

forgot to mention -- since the bills are different -- the other is Protect IP Act -- when/if they both pass then a joint committee of both Houses does a reconciliation process and the two chambers have to pass the reconciled bill. But by then it is too late to protest or even be sure what people are slipping into the text. If you want to register approval or disapproval the time would be ASAP and the way to do it would be to contact the members of the respective House and Senate committees Elinruby (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

November 20 edits

A lot of work has been done on the article over the past 24 hours. I have a few concerns about some of the edits and additions which I'll outline below. I've made a number of clerical corrections, formatting, spelling and grammar corrections, but below I've gone into more detail on some edits that may not be as self-explanatory:

• I've returned some summary content to the lead. It was moved out with this edit, with the edit summary stating (moved incomplete description of law into section about law. About to expand it.) -- expanding on what the bill does, in the body of the article, is fine ... but summarizing that content in the lede is also necessary.

• Under the 'Contents' section, where a neutral description of the content of the bill should reside, instead we have this second sentence: Although the bill's language says otherwise, its requirements would overturn the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DCMA) process requiring copyright owners to submit notices of infringement to websites and ask for the infringing material to be taken down, legal observers say. There are several problems with this. (1) It is worded as an argument against the bill, instead of a description of the bill. (2) It is cited to the CDT advocacy group as the source, yet the CDT is listed later in the article as an "opponent" protesting the bill - no longer a neutral source. (3) Even if the source were usable, it doesn't support the "Although the bill's language says otherwise" text. I moved the text to the 'concerns' section.

• Removed unsourced sentence about DNSSEC from 'Content' section; found no mention of it in the contents of the bill.

• Changed header: "Lobbyists, Campaign Contributions and the Revolving Door" ... not exactly neutral, and could be more descriptive. Addendum: After closer reading of this whole section, it is evident that only the Politico reference makes any mention of the SOPA legislation, and that's only to say that the big winners of the controversy are the lobbyists ... not the supporters or opponents. Removed as non-relevant.

• Removed the sentence: Claims made in a good faith belief that infringed has occurred would be immune from prosecution. -- Cited to this source, but the source does not support it.

• I replaced this citation with a CRS citation already in use. I couldn't access that site (might just be temporarily down).

• I renamed and moved the section titled "Criticism of the hearing Nov 16th 2011". Placing this obscure content as the number 2 section, between 'Contents' and 'Ramifications' is inappropriate.

• Moved some of the 'Ramifications items into more specific subsections; also moved eWeek link to page 1 in source.

More in a bit. I see some synth issues that I need to review more closely. Quite a few good additions, however - kudos. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:35, 21 November 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. I was just looking at the LA Times. There are also a lot of wikipedia articles that may apply.But...k.

where was the DNSSEC mention, just so I know? I do agree that both coverage and documentation on the issue was lacking. I have asked for help. If it does not materialize I'll try to get to this soon. Much slowed just now by having to type sideways laying down.

jdsupra -- thought the source ok but not amazing. What's a CRS? :)

criticism, there's more material above, will look at what you did though. Cited source ya, ok, obscure but probably accurate and provided the interesting flesh tone detail.

pcmag -- pretty sure it's in there towards the end of the article, unless I linked the wrong pcmag article. There are about 4. I've seen several mentions of this so it's not a fringe concern.

basically, feel free to review and correct but please document (above not bad) and move here for correction rather than delete. Some of that writing took a very long time and AFAIK if you don't like a source there are others. For all of it. Oh and thanks for the kudos ;)

oh, on lead, let's get the article written *then* summarize. ContinueWithCaution suggested this, and I agreed. On campaign contributions, whywhywhy. You can't possibly believe a couple hundred million is irrelevant, and fo sho there are analyses that came out today and last night saying otherwise.

please undo re-insertion of biased and incorrect statement in lead

See above, and in addition we've specifically discussed that the bill language may say it but the lawyers say that the bill lies. Elinruby (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure exactly what this conversation is about (you're both more involved in the content at this point). But I was going to point out earlier that I think the original bill itself should be treated with the same delicacy with which we normally treat press releases. True, there are kernels are hard, factual information contained within the bill (the hard policy). However, the general prose and style of the bill (when explaining its supposed cause and effect and its supposed motives) is inherently promotional in favor of the bill. This obviously doesn't completely devalue the bill as a source, but again, language and wild statements about positive effect by the bill's original writers should be carefully screened and placed in context, and if possible, somehow also supported by another source. Again, it just comes down to watching for weasel words, I suppose - I think the problem earlier was honestly that weasel words were polluting the Wikipedia text because it had been unconsciously carried over from the promotional bill language. I think the current state of the page does a good job of keeping the bill language in check, personally; you've obviously gone over it with a fine tooth comb. I also have a suspicion you two were earlier misinterpreting bias from each other simply because of how you were choosing to display the bill source material. Sorry if that was completely off topic, but I'd felt it had to be said. Sloggerbum (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your point about "promotional language" is spot on, and citing the bill's primary promoters or detractors could result in such over-the-top language as "...organizations engaged in foreign or economic espionage..." or "...this bill creates a strong deterrent to those who would risk the lives of our armed forces and our national security...". However, those sources have since been replaced, and the neutral language from third-party sources such as Grant Gross in PC World used instead. (Note Elinruby's apparent approval above: "Oh hey it's Grant Gross, didn't know this was an IDG site. Ya, he's a careful reporter, and I am sure he got the sections correctly summarized. Looks fine.") So that leaves me wondering just what "biased and incorrect statement" Elinruby is talking about here. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

also, statements from anyone (even lawyers in the press) saying the bill "lies" might be a bit extreme - the bill is weasely, like all legal documents created by high end, multi-million dollar law firms and politicians. But I doubt they'd ever do anything like explicitly "lie" in the actual bill - doing so is a legal liability. Disguise or warp the truth in a legal manner, well then, perhaps. But if we include any statements such as the bill "lying" in the entry, obviously you'll want to be extremely, extremely careful about explaining the context of where the opinion comes from. Sloggerbum (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting the article use the word. Not me anyway. I do however suggest that there are respectable opinions that say that the bill will not have the effects that the language says it will. Perhaps I should not have used the word here either, but I'd just seen a lot of work removed for no good reason and needed to protest that before sleeping for twelve hours :) But if it reassures you, no, I don't think the word should be in the article either, even carefully attributed. There's such a thing as responsible quoting. Elinruby (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been some strong words cast about from both sides, and it isn't too problematic to have limited 'examples' of the rhetoric in the article if they are properly delineated and attributed as mere opinion -- but the actual legitimate concerns should be neutrally and accurately conveyed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lobbyist inclusion

I looked at the edits about including the lobbyist/campaign contribution material Elinruby mentioned, and my vote is for including it for now. My reasoning is that at this point, the page is huge, and soon will need to be split off into various subpages. (Maybe not this week, but next week, etc.). We can't predict which sections may prove relevant in the media in the near future and are going to be expanding to the point of needing their own subpages. But until we make that call, there's no reason to cut out hard, relevant, succinctly presented facts. I say bloat now and slice later. (Sorry, that's a disgusting analogy).

HOWEVER, I really, really like the current version of the Criticism of the committee section. I'd recommend Elinruby put the lobbyist information back in, but do it in a separate, neutrally named section that doesn't interfere with Xenophrenic's last edits. I imagine we may decide it is better tacked on somewhere else later. Sloggerbum (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I should preface this by saying that the lobbying & money issues behind this legislation (and behind the opposition of this legislation) is certainly relevant, and I am not opposed to reliably sourced content that properly covers that aspect. However, the text I removed from our article was nothing close to that. I removed text that merely gave dollar amounts spent by the entertainment industry versus the tech industry; text that left the incorrect implication that these were the spending figures on this legislation - contrary to what the Politico article was conveying. If lobbying & money related sourced content that is actually relevant to this legislation is added to the article, there shouldn't be a problem. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I had it in a section entitled Lobbyists, campaign contributions and the revolving door -- is there something wrong with that or was that just a generic qualification, in case? I think neutral is good, thought we were there. On this at least.

Well, if I can stand in for the everyman, I didn't know what revolving door meant at first glance, so it may not be the best title. So maybe it's not a neutrality problem, just a...well, people being stupid problem. Also, three subject matters in the title sounds somewhat like the name of an essay or chapter, not the brutally bland subtitles we at Wikipedia are so famous for. Too poetic, my friend. You must squash such instincts. Sloggerbum (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir on the introduction. I had it at three paragraphs before Xenephrenic undid a bunch of changes. Also see section below where I spell out my problem with one particular sentence, which I did remove again. I left the rest of the paragraph but don't feel it is anything to be proud of at all. However, the rest is not completely wrong. The thing is, there is *so* much controversy about the bill that it will be hard to summarize its language as the controversy revolves around precisely what its language means.

On splitting the page up, I see the concern but am not sure just now how to address it and really want to include a more complete mention of DNSSEC and DNS issues, which I think takes priority as it requires prior knowledge to summarize them well. So it will probably get bigger. One thought -- as a preliminary step, have a page about the bill and discussion of the effects it would have according to various people, and another page about the criticisms of the committees behaviour, including the lobbyist section and the failure to include internet community in the discussion of a bill which seems to definitely affect the ecosystem of the internet.

On the title, one thing I do acknowledge is that I had not included any discussion of revolving door behavior before I had to go. I think it might be clearer with that context but I am not especially attached to the language if you have a better idea. The only other description I can think of is "Influence" and that seems worse. Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the lobbying & money content, how about this as an idea? Propose a paragraph or two here, with the sources to which it will be cited, and an appropriately worded subject header might well suggest itself from that content. Just a thought. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

legal expert: please review interpretive material on safe harbor, immunization of plaintiffs, streaming

The situation in a nutshell is that we have bill language that says it does one thing, and several opinions saying that the actual effect is different and worse. Thank you for any thoughts.Elinruby (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

US Congress expert

We appear to need a ruling on whether campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures and revolving doors could possibly be relevant to the writing and chances for passage of this bill. I'll get the deleted numbers out of history when I am less discouraged but it was something on the order of 100 million this year and 200 million last year.Elinruby (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Internet expert: please review discussion of IP blocking, DNS edits, DNSSEC and deep packet inspectiob

If you are able to explain harm DNSSEC easily please feel free. I can write this but it will take time.

Edit request 21 November 2011

There is a wiki link pointing to the wrong page in the DNS servers and security section. The link labeled Chinese DNS filters points to the Great Wall of China when it should instead point to the Great Firewall of China. 38.100.116.180 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Zidanie5 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much POV as V

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

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

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

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

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

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

incorrect statement removed

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

Problems with this language:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

streaming provisions

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

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

copyprotected -->copyrighted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 28 edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification changes sought

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

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

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)

ONGOING DISCUSSION - Splitting the Article

Update on page's progression

The page is coming along nicely, thanks to the ongoing efforts of long-term and short-term editors on the topic. Even neater, the entry is having an impact in the media; articles such as this are starting to quote Wikipedia's SOPA entry.

Also, the page has been serving an enormous amount of readers. As an overview, mid-November the page jumped from a few hundred daily views to 150k within days. After a week it tapered off to a steady 10k. Then on December 13th it jumped again to 150k, and its been amazingly busy since. SOPA Hit Counter (take a look!)

Splitting page

The page has grown to such as massive size that the lead cannot feasibly describe all the current content. If we can divert some of the extremely detailed information to subpages (of any number), then we can also ensure the central page is concise enough to be accessible to all audiences, and still give them the best overview possible. It also means that the subtopics can naturally grow and have more complete intros, and we can diffuse ongoing undue weight problems.

This can be a conversation solely based on structure, so please keep any POV/wording conversations to a different place. Both the insight of the long-term contributors and any passing editors is equally desired. To editors new to the topic, probably the most constant and prolific contributors to the article have been Elinruby (the page's resident WikiDragon) and Xenophrenic, so they may have interesting insight and be able to answer questions about the content.

Starter Questions (please discuss in lower section)

What's the best way to split the page up? (Should we poach the structure from a similar topic? Examples?)

How should we go about practically making the changes, once we've settled on common sense? (Work as group to create drafts, perhaps, then make changes in one fell swoop? Something else?)

Possibly pertinent Wikipedia guidelines

• Wikipedia:Splitting
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section
• Wikipedia:Article titlesTemplate:Multicol-break

• Wikipedia:Article size
• Wikipedia:General overview article

Once we've chatted about this for a few days and tried to cover the main angles, I'd recommend we take action. Let's keep the discussion friendly and welcoming, as this is a topic we'll need to amicably work on for as long as SOPA is in the media. Happy holidays! Sloggerbum (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts appreciated below

I'm not deeply involved in this page but have contributed a bit and was asked to look at the splitting question.

• I didn't get a "66K long" or such tag when I went to "edit"; I think such is maybe automatic when a page say exceeds 50K. First indication to me it's not (yet) too long.
• The argument above that the article's too complicated to introduce I don't really buy. A scan of the Ramifications section (the only relatively easy split would be to move this section out, leaving maybe headings, I'd say) so far says, "Fine". Yes, it's wide-ranging but seems to be "within bounds".
• Overall, I'd say "Congratulations". There are signs of battling over the content -- not surprising given the subject, an open political fight -- but novice-to-fairly sophisticated readers surely find a good review and many leads (again, for my part, from a quick scan). Great to see the "Hits" analysis, and substance, above, too. Congrats again. Swliv (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As with Swilv, I'm not deeply involved with the content of the article, save for some minor copyediting here and there to reflect the current state of affairs regarding SOPA, as well as a bit of proofreading.

However, if - if - there were to be a split, I'd suggest that it be one that goes as such:

• Main article: A description of the bill, its intent, and a list of supporters/opponents

• Split: The controversy over the bill, and the stances of its supporters and opponents with regard to the controversial segments of the bill (e.g., DNS blocking, the vagueness of the bill's language, chilling effects on free speech, and the like).

That's my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation). Hope this is of some value to you. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 00:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article is indeed very long - a check of the history page reveals that it's currently 81K bytes - but I don't think splitting it up is the answer. Rather, the quotes need to be trimmed. At the moment, the article is in need of serious rearranging - it reads like one long collection of quotes, with comments by opponents and supports of the bill interspersed seemingly at random, and without any clear structure. I personally find it to hard to read in its current form. I bet a logical rearrangement, that trimmed the quotes to their bare essence and removed some extraneous ones, could easily bring the article down to 60K or less. Yaron K. (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yaron's got it right—the article relies too much on quotes, and many are too wordy. I don't see the need to split the article at this time. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think the proposed bill needs to have two articles about it. It's only a proposed bill, not one that has passed. All of the information should be on one page, cut to the nub so that it summarizes the topic without getting too bloated. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Splitting doesn't need discussion. Be bold. I was actually going to split now. And this page is 170,141 bytes long. Immense. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Per Special Operative MACAVITY and Ebe, I say be bold and split the article - if it has already 81k - and seems to be growing a an enormous rate, it needs to be split. This act just keeps on giving - so let's give it more room on another article. -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 01:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I can imagine somebody being BOLD getting all their work undone by a merge and redirect conclusion to an AfD. That's not bold, it's wasteful of time. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't really ask... -- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} 12:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Been there, done that. I have not looked at the article in some time, but yes, there were some long quotes, so that is one thing and possibly a way to go; two, there is fundamental disagreement as to the article's purpose and structure. I will refrain from further comment until I have looked at its current state. But I believe that I am against splitting off ramifications, as the bill language contains many weasel words that keep getting reinserted back into the article. I mean -- saving jobs, who would be against *that*? And since we must use secondary sources, the only way to say otherwise is to use quotes. Sorry to be so pessimistic. I will try to make a constructive suggestion either later tonight or perhaps tomorrow. If someone is bold meanwhile, then I will look at whatever has come of *that* ;) 75.149.44.10 (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right; boldness of the sort you are describing would most likely be reverted, so letting the conversation play out before we make bold moves may be best. Fortunately we have the time to sit back and do this thoughtfully; the page as is is in fairly good shape, even with the endless push and pull over weasel words and such. Splitting content this well-advanced is a luxury, might as well do it right. :) Also, heads up in general, I personally believe cutting any material for the mere sake of making the page shorter or more succinct goes against the good sense of the Wikipedia:Splitting guideline, which was partly developed to keep pertinent information from being lost even if it's too detailed for a summarizing page. Sloggerbum (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • Well, I've been reverted for this kind of thing before, I admit, but it's good to try. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 12:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think it should stay one article. It's a very hot topic and would lose power if it were split. Moreover, I didn't see a way to split it easily. I agree with those who suggested shortening some of the quotes. If this is still an issue tomorrow or Saturday, I may try some copy editing to squeeze out some of the fat, using what I learned from The Elements of Style, e.g., "Use no unnecessary words." DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would agree with those who have commented here that there's too much reliance on quotation, and that summation and synopsis rather than large numbers of quotations would both trim the article's size and improve its quality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think it would be better to have one article about the proposal itself and one about the debate. Fernbom2 (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• This page is [currently (change the page, get back here, purge and it will be here)] 70 KB long. According to SPLIT, we should split it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• What about creating one brief article with a general title covering this general issue with quick references to the two individual articles followed by other references to articles on similarities and differences between the Senate and House versions? The two articles are really about the same thing, which should be discussed together. Also, I read below that there is already a separate list of supporters, which would not need to be duplicated in the article. The lists of supporters and opponents, apart from elected officials should be the same. Where they are different, some research is needed to understand the differences. This could end up being 5 or more articles. Then the articles on the individual bills could be shortened considerably to focus on the positions of individual politicians for the respective bills / articles. I'm not sure what to call this combined version, but there should be other sources that discuss the two bills together that would give us an easily recognizable title. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I just created Copyright bills in the 2011-2012 United States Congress. It currently consists only of 118 words including references to the House and Senate bills. If the article is still there tomorrow or Tuesday, I may start to expand it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The 32kb limit is outdated, in my opinion; certainly many very good Wikipedia articles flirt with 200kb and more. The bigger problem is that this article has drifted toward a more and more politically polarized organizational structure, as exemplified in a recent edit where virtually everything is sorted by pro- and anti-. This is not the right way to organize an article, and it's definitely not the right way to organize a split. We should remember that for Wikipedia purposes the primary issue is not who wins, but what the facts are: how much income is really lost to piracy, what kinds of snooping and blocking the bill allows or requires, who is for and against it and how much they're putting up, what the constitutional issues and precedents are, etc. So the article organization shouldn't be by sides but by actual underlying facts. If we made sub-articles they should have names like Human rights issues regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act, Legislative history of the Stop Online Piracy Act - as opposed to Support for the Stop Online Piracy Act and Opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act. So until somebody takes some time to get this article properly organized with pro- and anti- dispersed and dutifully sparring in a hundred little properly pigeonholed compartments, it's best not to even consider a split. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Supporters: H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act

Hey all, keep up the good work, I thougth it was a good idea to share the fact that a list with supporters is known on this location: List of Supporters: H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, I thought that would ad information on the subject. Jasperwillem (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, GoDaddy removed their support after a boycott campaign. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/victory-boycott-forces-godaddy-to-drop-its-support-for-sopa.ars 92.156.202.56 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC) It is also confirmed in the same reference used to show the support of godaddy (ref 86) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.60.131.225 (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For those orgs and persons who have expressed a position and for whom there is a list of political positions, is there a reason not to put this item on the list? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Go Daddy should be mentioned in the list of opponents. They have even said that they have helped write the drafts of the draft. They should either be in the list of supporters or simply not mentioned at all. I'd like to remove them but I forgot the password for my account -__-' forbore (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't fall into recentism. For encyclopedic purposes it is just as important that they did support it as that they don't now. So it would be best to list them as a supporter with a parenthetical about the retraction. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How have we consider GoDaddy as an opponent. From the words of their CEO Adelman in regard to changing its position when on the record in Congress: “I’ll take that back to our legislative guys, but I agree that’s an important step.” But when pressed, he said “We’re going to step back and let others take leadership roles.” He felt that the public statement removing their support would be sufficient for now, though further steps would be considered. (http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/23/godaddy-ceo-there-has-to-be-consensus-about-the-leadership-of-the-internet-community/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.108.102 (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Torrentfreak has posted this link now to: organizations and individuals opposing sopa, as extra information. Chrz. Jasperwillem (talk) 04:39, 24 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)

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)