Wikipedia protest shutdown

[Gustav]

excellent
we all now a lot dumber now thanks to adoucette and his mpaa goons

[adoucette]

Poor Wiki.

At least Google wasn't so stupid.

Though I thought it was pretty funny, Google went right along with Wikipedia in the run up to this, but then just put a black banner on their site.
But then, since they compete with Wiki as an information portal and today they are OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

[adoucette]

excellent
we all now a lot dumber now thanks to adoucette and his mpaa goons

Nah, you manage that totally on your own.

[scheherazade]

Is it still possible to access Wikipedia in any way?

Yes. During the blackout, Wikipedia is accessible on mobile devices and smart phones. You can also view Wikipedia normally by disabling JavaScript in your browser, as explained on this Technical FAQ page. Our purpose here isn't to make it completely impossible for people to read Wikipedia, and it's okay for you to circumvent the blackout. We just want to make sure you see our message.

Source-Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ive/Learn_more

Annoying colors added by myself.

[Trooper]

Good morning and thank you, Scheherazade. Your ability to pay attention to detail does come in handy.

[adoucette]

Source-Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ive/Learn_more

Annoying colors added by myself.

LOL, so they wimped out and didn't actually go through with the Blackout after all?

That's hilarious.

I'm not going to use them today anyway, which is no biggy, because even using other search engines besides Google, all the information I've been looking for has been easily found outside Wiki.

Maybe Wiki will learn something today as well, that not everyone supports theft of other's creative output.

[Trooper]

You can also just hit the ESC key.

As the site starts loading, hit the ESC key and the good old home page will appear. When you type your search data into the form and hit the enter key, you must also hit the ESC key again.

[adoucette]

Even more hilarious.
They backed off their so called Blackout by allowing a single key stroke?

Thanks, but since I don't agree with them I'm not using them today.

And I bet they do see a significant loss of hits, and associated revenue.

And loss of revenue based on creative content is what this is all about and so they totally deserve it.

[michael_taylor]

Maybe by listening to people who understand the ACTUAL problem and help craft legislation that will help prevent it.

Surely you're not pretending sopa did that?

[adoucette]

Surely you're not pretending sopa did that?

That was it's intent when it was proposed.

[scheherazade]

Actually, I think Wikipedia is doing a fairly brilliant communication strategy.

They are directing all who use their services to their information page on this issue.

After reading through it, they describe the work around they have enabled. Mobile devices and Smart Phones are not affected.

They are effectively informing a far greater portion of the population about the nature of this issue than the general media will be reaching. People are jaded by politics. No matter who you vote for, the government gets in.

Wiki is not punishing the users of their service. They are merely trying to inform them, as I see it.

[adoucette]

Yeah, "we just want you to see OUR VERSION of the truth" says it all.

The fact is they threatened a black out and wimped out says more about where their priorities lie.

$$$$

[scheherazade]

Yeah, "we just want you to see OUR VERSION of the truth" says it all.

The fact is they threatened a black out and wimped out says more about where their priorities lie.

$$$$

Isn't the whole movement to regulate the internet about money, merely clothed in 'principle'?

I came across another site that was also going along with a voluntary blackout.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/

Unless people (and businesses) have either something to gain or lose, they generally will not engage 'just on principle', in my observations, which admittedly are limited by my location and general lack of interest in what 'the crazies' are doing.

[adoucette]

Isn't the whole movement to regulate the internet about money, merely clothed in 'principle'?

Well there is a difference between making money via producing content and making money via piracy.

Both are about making money, but they are not at all the same thing.

The fact is, that page is the only page on Wiki that isn't editable.

It should have a big banner saying "it's neutrality is questioned"

[parmalee]

Of course, Arthur has never (or NEVER, rather) posted links to sites which stream copyrighted content sans permissions, right?

Presumably, this (amongst countless other such instances) is but an example of Arthur's account being hacked by some miscreant--or is Monty Python and the Holy Grail now in the public domain?

[adoucette]

Of course, Arthur has never (or NEVER, rather) posted links to sites which stream copyrighted content sans permissions, right?

Presumably, this (amongst countless other such instances) is but an example of Arthur's account being hacked by some miscreant--or is Monty Python and the Holy Grail now in the public domain?

No I expect the content creators will make money from it.

Resources for Content Owners
YouTube's state-of-the-art technology allows content owners to identify user-uploaded videos and audio comprised of their content, and choose what they want to happen when those videos are found: Make money from them. Get stats on them. Or block them from YouTube altogether.

http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_owners

As to "countless other instances", while I may have slipped up occasionally (who doesn't), I would not knowingly link to a site that did not provide renumeration for copywrite holders.

But interestingly, that is NOT the point of the proposed legislation.
It isn't going after someone who links to a video, it's focused on stopping the sites that stream this data.

YouTube has always been aware of copywrite and has provided renumeration.

Indeed, if you post a video on you-tube and it goes viral You-Tube will send you a check.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/te...ube-video.html

[parmalee]

No I expect they originators make money from it.

And you actually believe that this happens, even in a simple majority of such instances?

Second question, who are the "originators?" You seem so passionate about this issue that I expect you are intimately familiar it--so, who are these "content providers" and "originators" you're so keen on "protecting"?

As to "countless other instances", while I may have slipped up occasionally (who doesn't), I would not knowingly link to a site that did not provide renumeration for copywrite holders.

Right.

[adoucette]

And you actually believe that this happens, even in a simple majority of such instances?

YES

You-Tube makes it quite clear to content providers how to cash in on their property.

If your video is on the road to viral success, YouTube, a part of Google, is eager to make money from you. It will send you an e-mail asking if you want to become a partner. If you give your permission, the site will run ads alongside your video and share more than half the revenue with you, sending you a check each month.

Or do you also dispute the NYT article?

Second question, who are the "originators?" You seem so passionate about this issue that I expect you are intimately familiar it--so, who are these "content providers" and "originators" you're so keen on "protecting"?

The people who creatively create the content or those they sell the rights of that content to.

Right.

Yes RIGHT.

Parmlee if you have any evidence that I'm in anyway making money off anything I've posted, or in anyway helping others to pirate content then POST THAT EVIDENCE or STFU.

[parmalee]

YES

You-Tube makes it quite clear to content providers how to cash in on their property.

So when some kid posts a clip from a Monty Python, I assume that you accept that this kid probably hasn't gone through the proper channels, right? So it's up to someone else--presumably with a relation to the "originators"--to keeps tabs on this shit. Well, the internet's kinda big, no? And that's an awful lot of work. I can't even keep track of my own material that is posted without my permission (and neither do I care, but that's another matter), and I'm fairly confident that Monty Python is a good deal more popular than I am--you can see where I'm going with this, right?

The people who creatively create the content or those they sell the rights of that content to.

Any idea as to which group is reaping the greater profit, the former or the latter? Does this even factor into your concerns?

Yes RIGHT.

Parmlee if you have any evidence that I'm in anyway making money off anything I've posted, or in anyway helping others to pirate content then POST THAT EVIDENCE or STFU.

I haven't suggested that you personally are profiting, merely that you are complicit in allowing others to profit.

[parmalee]

Also, I would like to see some evidence supporting your contention that copyright holders are in fact compensated for what is posted on YouTube in at least a majority of instances.