Wales and Dodd have been arguing at opposing ends of the SOPA / PIPA battle, more generally the argument covers differences in opinion regarding how to deal with the perceived threat of online piracy. In response to SOPA and PIPA, Wales led the charge o protests by blacking out Wikipedia for 24 hours last Wednesday. SOPA and PIPA, two pieces of legislation that Dodd and the MPAA support, have been put on the backburner as the House and Senate have delayed action, respectively.

Dodd has been critical of the shelving of both SOPA and PIPA, even calling the massive internet SOPA Blackout led by Wikipedia an abuse of power. Wales addressed that at the DLD conference:

“10 million people contacted Congress,” Wales said. “That’s not an abuse of power, that’s democracy. [Dodd] had best get used to it.”

According to comments made as part of Sundance’s Cinema Cafe series, it looks like Dodd is softening his rhetoric when it comes to the internet protests that seem to have had such an impact on Congressional action on SOPA. From the Hollywood Reporter:

“It’s a watershed event, what happened,” Dodd admitted, noting that opponents’ “ability to organize and communicate directly with consumers” was a game-changing phenomenon that he hadn’t seen in more than three decades in public office.

Dodd seemed to have a sense of humor about the recent beating he’s taken as spokesman for the mainstream entertainment industry, the kind of “chaos” that the former Senator had hoped to leave behind when he left office in January 2011. “Up until a week ago I thought that was a pretty good decision,” he joked. But the message Dodd most seemed to want to get across was that “the white noise has
made it impossible to have a conversation about this,” he said. “We’ve gotta find a better way to have that conversation than we have in the last two weeks.”

In no way is Dodd backing off his support for legislation like SOPA, but at least he recognized the power of collective internet protest.

As you probably know, Dodd has been under fire recently for some comments he made on Fox News:

Candidly, those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake. …

I would caution people don’t make the assumption that because the quote ‘Hollywood community’ has been historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don’t make the false assumptions this year that because we did it in years past, we will do it this year. These issues before us — this is the only issue that goes right to the heart of this industry.

The gist here is that Congress needs to remember who writes the checks, and need to fall in line with their interests. These comments are obviously teeming with hints of corruption, so much so that an online petition at the White House petition site had been started asking for an investigation of Dodd and the MPAA for bribery. The signature currently has 26,470 signatures and has hit its threshold to warrant a White House response.

This morning on the DLD stage, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales began a talk with VKontakte, the Russian Facebook, founder Pavel Durov. The talk was centered around SOPA, other legislation and the Wikipedia blackout from last week. Durov began the conference, however, by pledging $1 million to Wikipedia.

“I want to give Wikipedia one million dollars, if Jimmy will accept it,” Durov said. Venture Beat reported that Wales responded with, “How old are you?” Then joked that he wished he could give away $1 million when he was 27-years-old.

The official DLD tumblr went on to outline Wales’ beef with Hollywood and SOPA. The Wikipedia founder said that while Wikipedia has always been subtly political, last week’s blackout was the most overtly political thing the foundation has ever done.

Wales had a message for Hollywood: “Let people buy what they want to buy.” He went on to give an example of how he had bought the first Star Wars film on blu-ray in Europe, but it wouldn’t play in the U.S. He tried to pay for it again on iTunes, but they don’t sell it here. He then said that it’s no wonder people pirate films when the industry makes it so hard to obtain them legally.

“Digital distribution platforms are an incredible opportunity for the movie industry,” he said.

He called on Hollywood to talk to people with a bit more humility instead of trying to push draconian laws like SOPA. “When you see Rupert Murdoch on Twitter calling Google a pirate, that’s just insane,” he said.

Other laws circulating around capitol hill came under fire from Wales as well. “Anything mandating that we keep more and more records on people is probably a very bad idea,” he said.

[Lead image courtesy of the DLD tumblr]

Jimmy Wales doesn’t like SOPA and, even though that Internet-censoring law has been shelved for the time being, he has not forgotten the threat of what a SOPA can do. To emphasize how SOPA will screw up all of the Internet for all of the people, Jimmy Wales has decided to do something:

The 24-hour blackout will affect only the English-language portion of the site, but lots of people speak English and so you can expect that lots of people will feel the effects of such a gap in the Internet. However, Wales says that Germans will run a banner about the SOPA-protesting blackout and other language versions will be able to make their own decisions about the site.

And yes, though SOPA may be on hiatus at the moment but, just like comic book villains and the moldy sour cream you unknowingly ate with your burrito at lunch, it is likely to come back and haunt you. Besides, PIPA, the Senate’s quiet yet equally evil step-sister to SOPA, is still haunting Congress and the Internet. So come Wednesday, January 18th, you will not Wikipedia anything so as to show you how hard it is to do school reports or learn anything without the enormous resource that is Wikipedia. Go ahead and preview it now: Google something. Anything. I bet you the first result is a link to that term/object/concept’s Wikipedia page.

And that should give you a pretty good idea of how cemented Wikipedia is into our info-searching habits. Good luck finding a better starting point in your search inquiries.

As of now, thanks to the ByeDaddy search engine, a list of the top 100 searched domains still with GoDaddy reveals Wikipedia.org in the top spot, as well as a host — pun intended — of other sites you wouldn’t expect to frequent a SOPA-supporting company with such direct ties to the Internet. Sites like XKCD.com, UrbanDictionary, WordPress, Penny Arcade, TV Tropes, and Groveshark are just a few of the companies paying GoDaddy for their registrar service.

Perhaps the thinking is GoDaddy’s immunity from SOPA-related shutdowns will trickle down to domains that registered with GoDaddy. As for Wikipedia, apparently, they still plan on leaving GoDaddy, but they are taking their time in regards to picking a new domain registration service. A tweet from Jimmy Wales reveals as much:

Apparently, Namecheap’s promotional move didn’t appeal to the Wikipedia masters very much at all. With that in mind, here’s the top 100 sites still with GoDaddy’s service, courtesy of the ByeDaddy’s metrics:

wikipedia.org
xkcd.com
myeg.net
quantic-destiny.com
ronpaul2012.com
digg.com
mmo-champion.com
cynicalbrit.com
stackoverflow.com
urbandictionary.com
github.com
wordpress.org
wordpress.com
sc2ranks.com
rootzwiki.com
wikipedia.com
twit.tv
respawn.com
oceanmarketinginc.com
tvtropes.org
penny-arcade.com
icanhascheezburger.com
revision3.com
nasl.tv
theverge.com
youjizz.com
wellplayed.org
solomid.net
curse.com
geekosystem.com
hfboards.com
worldofwarcraft.com
mashable.com
37signals.com
giantbomb.com
gravatar.org
neogaf.com
blip.tv
swtor.com
craveonline.com
kevinrose.com
xkcd.org
grooveshark.com
wikibooks.org
wikia.com
mspaintadventures.com
foursquare.com
destructoid.com
barackobama.com
memebase.com
buzzfeed.com
wikimedia.org
explosm.net
cheezburger.com
wowhead.com
stackexchange.com
thenoisecast.com
ronpaulforums.com
openbsd.org
livejournal.com
katterhenry.net
arenajunkies.com
wocserver.org
teevox.com
nexon.net
kde.org
esfiworld.com
airbnb.com
yogscast.com
oink.com
soundcloud.com
quickmeme.com
kpopchan.com
icefilms.info
firedoglake.com
fanfiction.net
failblog.com
colonyofgamers.com
codsm.org
codinghorror.com
wimp.com
shoemoney.com
serverfault.com
riaa.org
nicholasforneris.com
miniclip.com
lockergnome.com
lazygamer.net
jrmracing.com
feld.com
break.com
starcraft2.com
pof.com
lesther.info
interviewstreet.com
endoftheinter.net
boardgamegeek.com
blazemore.net
archlinuxarm.org
wingsupply.com

Did GoDaddy’s SOPA reversal change minds of these site owners or are they simply taking their time, like Wikipedia?

Lead image courtesy of Natalie Dee.

The post in questions, titled, “How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia” goes way beyond the reactive, blanking of Wikipedia measures discussed by Wales. Like a good law firm, the media arm of Wikipedia laid down their position in detailed fashion, explaining why the idea of SOPA goes against the open principles on which the Internet was founded. An example:

We cannot battle, however, one wrong while inflicting another. SOPA represents the flawed proposition that censorship is an acceptable tool to protect rights owners’ private interests in particular media. That is, SOPA would block entire foreign websites in the United States as a response to remove from sight select infringing material. This is so even when other programs like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have found better balances without the use of such a bludgeon. For this reason, we applaud the excellent work of a number of like-minded organizations that are leading the charge against this legislation…

It continues on for some length, comprehensively laying out their ideas opposing SOPA. There’s also a section that deals with the legal ramifications of such a bill passing, and these, too, are addressed in the post. In fact, Lamar Smith’s amendments are also addressed, showing just how up to date Wikimedia’s reaction is.

I’ve been asked for a legal opinion. And, I will tell you, in my view, the new version of SOPA remains a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet.

• The new version continues to undermine the DMCA and federal jurisprudence that have promoted the Internet as well as cooperation between copyright holders and service providers. In doing so, SOPA creates a regime where the first step is federal litigation to block an entire site wholesale: it is a far cry from a less costly legal notice under the DMCA protocol to selectively take down specified infringing material. The crime is the link, not the copyright violation. The cost is litigation, not a simple notice.
• The expenses of such litigation could well force non-profit or low-budget sites, such as those in our free knowledge movement, to simply give up on contesting orders to remove their links. (Secs. 102(c)(3); 103(c)(2)) The international sites under attack may not have the resources to challenge extra-territorial judicial proceedings in the United States, even if the charges are false.
  The new version of SOPA reflects a regime where rights owners may seek to terminate advertising and payment services, such as PayPal, for an alleged “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” (Sec. 103(c)(2)) A rights owner must seek a court order (unlike the previous version) (Sec. 103(b)(5)). Most rights owners are well intentioned, but many are not.[2] We cannot assume that litigious actions to block small sites abroad will always be motivated in good faith, especially when the ability to defend is difficult.

Read more at Wikimedia’s post. As for the inclusion of Smith’s amendments, the feeling is, while an improvement, they don’t adequately fix what SOPA potentially breaks:

In short, though there have been some improvements with the new version, SOPA remains far from acceptable. Its definitions remain too loose, and its structural approach is flawed to the core. It hurts the Internet, taking a wholesale approach to block entire international sites, and this is most troubling for sites in the open knowledge movement who probably have the least ability to defend themselves overseas.

Aside from the Protect Innovation consortium, there aren’t many publications that so thoroughly discuss the implications of SOPA with such a level head. Not only is the discussion an important one, there’s also emotion involved. Thankfully, the Wikimedia post purposely eschews emotion for a factual, level-headed approach.

Lead image courtesy.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is considering a site-wide “blank out” of Wikipedia’s pages. Is this approach too extreme or is Wales correct in his anti-SOPA stance. Thoughts? Reactions? Share them in the comments.

Consider NBC Universal’s approach, one that includes an edict of support SOPA or we’ll have serious issues distributing content from those who don’t. That’s right, NBC threatened their content suppliers with a “support SOPA or else” threat, representing a position that’s similar to blackmail. Apparently that’s business as usual in the corporate world, but there is hope. As indicated, not every tech industry giant is falling in step with SOPA/PIPA, including such big names like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Yahoo, companies that are diametrically opposed to how SOPA works.

Now, you can add Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales to the anti-SOPA pile. Wales and Wikipedia are so against the ideas set forth by SOPA — mainly, the censorship aspect — they are considering blacking Wikipedia out as a method of protest; and when I say “blacking out,” I mean turning all of the Wikipedia pages blank, as in, no content, in an effort to show just how how much Wikipedia opposes the idea of censorship.

To facilitate his idea, Wales posted a suggestion on his User Talk Wikipedia page, and it, in no uncertain terms, lays out Wales’ position. His statement is below in blockquote form, and he invites other Wikipedia members and users to respond to his makeshift poll:

A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of “Stop Online Piracy Act’ is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track.

I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case.

There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it’s of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia.

Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales… 07:42, 10 December 2011‎

While a great deal of the responses are of the “Support” or “Firmly Support,” there are a number who of users who are opposed to the way Wikipedia is planning on protesting SOPA; although, many who opposed Wales’ postion did so because they don’t want Wikipedia getting involved in political issues.

An example:

Oppose, really bad idea. Blanking the site for a political purpose, even one that helps Wiki, is using power over content for advocacy. It’s in the same class as deleting an article that might help a candidate or cause some subset of us don’t like. Yes, not as egrigious…but in the same class. (And there will be some subset of Wikipedians that support SOPA. Heck, I hear they even let Republicans edit this site, occasionally.)

Regarding the blanking of Wikipedia pages, some on Twitter are thinking of the all the students out there who will suffer without it:

You’ll also find those who agree with Wales’ approach:

Here’s an interesting query about SOPA, courtesy of Google’s Matt Cutts: Does it violate the First Amendment? According to a Harvard law professor, yes. Yes it does:

The link in Cutts’ tweet goes to a 23-page document that discusses the concept. An example of the document’s position:

These concessions go to the heart of the constitutional defect evident on the face of SOPA. Although the problems of online copyright and trademark infringement are genuine,SOPA is an extreme measure that is not narrowly tailored to governmental interests. It is a blunderbuss rather than a properly limited response, and its stiff penalties would significantly endanger legitimate websites and services. Its constitutional defects are not marginal ones that could readily be trimmed in the process of applying and enforcing it in particular cases. Rather,its very existence would dramatically chill protected speech by undermining the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. It should not be enacted by Congress.

With that in mind, should Wikipedia blank its pages in protest of SOPA or should they just let the chips fall where they may? Is fighting censorship with censorship really the way to go? Is that too extreme of an approach from Wikipedia or are more protests like this needed?

If Wales’ approach isn’t ideal, what, if anything, should the Wikipedia protest consist of? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Speaking at Bristol University in the UK, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, had some less than positive things to say this week about the direction the web is taking – the app direction. As quoted by computing.co.uk:

"The debate is a highly overblown issue," said Wales in a response to question about his personal view of net neutrality. "A lot of the things that people are afraid of are in reality a long way from happening. The real threat comes from the apps model."

On the open internet anyone can develop software and give it away or sell it. "But in the apps model, you have to get Apple’s permission," said Wales. "That choke point is very dangerous. It’s not theoretical like a network operator potentially shutting out Skype, it’s real and it’s happening now."

The words somewhat echo a recent report from the inventor of the web himself – Tim Berners-Lee. Here’s a sample from that:

In contrast, not using open standards creates closed worlds. Apple’s iTunes system, for example, identifies songs and videos using URIs that are open. But instead of "http:" the addresses begin with "itunes:," which is proprietary. You can access an "itunes:" link only using Apple’s proprietary iTunes program. You can’t make a link to any information in the iTunes world—a song or information about a band. You can’t send that link to someone else to see. You are no longer on the Web. The iTunes world is centralized and walled off. You are trapped in a single store, rather than being on the open marketplace. For all the store’s wonderful features, its evolution is limited to what one company thinks up.

Other companies are also creating closed worlds. The tendency for magazines, for example, to produce smartphone "apps" rather than Web apps is disturbing, because that material is off the Web. You can’t bookmark it or e-mail a link to a page within it. You can’t tweet it. It is better to build a Web app that will also run on smartphone browsers, and the techniques for doing so are getting better all the time.

Smartphone usage continues to skyrocket. Usage of the iPhone in particular is about to as it comes to Verizon. And of course 2011 is the year of the tablet as iPads continue to sell well and all of its competitors come to the market – many powered by App market places. 

In other words, don’t expect the app model being criticized by these guys to go away anytime soon. Berners-Lee’s report also criticized social networks like Facebook for walling off data, which is part of the same issue – a fragmented web, which could hardly be considered a web at all in the traditional sense of the word. 

The first definition of "web" listed in Google’s definition results is "an intricate network suggesting something that was formed by weaving or interweaving". While there is certainly plenty of room for interweaving within the app model, there is also plenty of room for disconnecting. Of course, when you take the second definition Google provides for "web" perhaps the web is in no danger at all: "an intricate trap that entangles or ensnare its victim."

There are a lot of great apps. There’s a reason the web is going in this direction, but will we reach a point where the apps that are supposed to bring more convenience to our lives end up creating an incredible inconvenience? Many of us are bound to reach that point repeatedly. 

Luckily, the web as we know it is still here too. It’s not really going anywhere, and is readily available from all of our smartphones, tablets, and connected device. It’s just that more of the innovation and development may go to serve these fragmented ecosystems rather than focus on the web itself. 

News Corp. is getting ready to release its latest publication called The Daily. Want to read subscribe? I hope you have an iPad.

More discussion on our Facebook page.

Mitch Kapor, who’s on the Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, announced the contribution late yesterday on Twitter.  Jimmy Wales followed up soon after with a tweet of his own soon after.

Unsurprisingly, both men seemed happy.  In terms of what this should mean to the Wikimedia Foundation, $2 million is a big deal.  The goal of the 2009/2010 Annual Fundraiser (which ended on January 5th) was only $7.5 million, so Google has supplied enough money to cover over three months’ expenses.

Of course, the donation might not be entirely unselfish; Google and the Wikimedia Foundation have some common goals relating to "free and open information."  Also, donations to the Wikimedia Foundation are tax-deductible.

Still, the Wikimedia Foundation is determined "to keep Wikipedia free of ads," and Wikipedia is in direct competition with Google Knol (if "competition" is a fair word when Wikipedia’s winning by a huge margin).  So it’s hard to be too cynical about Google’s gift.