![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Schmidt's main point is that there may be free-speech violations. He says we've seen similar actions and their consequences in China. In my opinion the lead section should be more general about his criticisms, and in the criticisms sections we can explore them in their full glory. Maximilianklein ( talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It may be noted that the PROTECT IP act was passed by the US Senate, but Rep. Ron Wyden has put a hold on the bill Source: http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=33a39533-1b25-437b-ad1d-9039b44cde92 Ssa3512 ( talk) 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
How would this act affect http://www.google.com.hk/ ? Would Americans still be free to access that site and get uncensored search results? Wnt ( talk) 23:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please comment on the issues of original research, reliable links, weasle words and advertising that have been discussed in this section. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following content has been inserted (and re-inserted) into the article. It is cited to primary sources and blogs, and contains original research. Does anyone have some high quality sourcing covering this topic that we could use for similar content?
Xenophrenic ( talk) 11:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if my expressed agreement was unclear. Here is what I said above:
As you can see, my agreement with you was that the two old sections were bloated, and I suggested a fix. I have since implemented that fix by putting the pro/con arguments about technical issues into a separate section, and putting the pro/con civil liberties issues into a separate section. I in no way implied agreement to creating a section devoted to advertizing, describing or promoting various software add-ons or browser plug-ins in our article about the PROTECT IP Act.
We have reliable sources already cited in our article that convey the technical concern that the DNS filtering provisions of the bill would prove ineffectual to any internet user armed with a "workaround" add-on. We also have reliably sourced competing content suggesting that circumvention of the DNS filtering will not become very widespread, or that the availability of such add-ons doesn't mean that filtering shouldn't be implemented. With both sides of that "technical issue" thusly explained, I fail to see why you are pressing to also add a shopping menu of add-ons, highlighted by having its very own subject header, complete with direct links to "Download now!" product website pages. How does this further inform our readers about the PROTECT IP Act? Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't find the Protect IP Act mentioned at all in several of the non-RS sources cited, so they were removed. I'll see if I can find some better references. Since there doesn't seem to be any objection to reworking the bloated praise & criticism sections, I'll have a go at it. Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this bill a direct descendant of COICA, or merely in the same spirit? Wasn't sure how to phrase the relation? Maximilianklein ( talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the large list of all the official supporters of the bill. Not only does it make for a too-long sentence, but it's not important to mention the most minor ones, they can be found in the references. If it feels like to balance the neutral point of view we have to mention equal amounts of supporters on both sides then let's at least come to a conclusion that doesn't involve an exhaustive list of over 10 groups in a sentence. Perhaps a list is better for this if we want to make an all encompassing view. Maximilianklein ( talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I can't find netflix in the link that was given. Someone added them without the prior citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullslash ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"The bill is supported by a wide range of business, industry and labor groups, spanning many sectors of the economy. It is opposed by numerous individuals, businesses, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions."
It's supported by groups who think they are losing money to piracy, and opposed by the internet industry and by people interested in civil liberties. To put it bluntly. There's probably a more politically correct way to phrase it, but this is in the lead and should get to the nitty-gritty. Elinruby ( talk) 08:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
the two subsections help, but should both be broken into paragraphs for readability. And, in my opinion, expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
that could be used to show that the same bill keeps being reintroduced. A list of recording industry executives now at DoJ might also be instructive, if I recall my prior research on this. Also campaign contributions, especially for Leahy. I hope these thoughts help. I am too tired to do any actual writing just now but will try to come back with some sources. Maybe conference papers would work as sources, hmm? Elinruby ( talk) 09:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have written an editorial on this topic, which is why I am calling this a disclosure. It is my understanding that this does not bar me from participating in edits on the topic as long as I "play nice" and acknowledge that people are entitled to disagree with me.
I question whether the site where the editorial appears would count as a reliable source -- it's small and geared to web developers not network people -- and I am probably not the person to decide that. But I am not proposing it as a source. There are better sources out there imho and also, I cite some blogs that seem to have been rejected as non-RS. But some of my *other* sources may be of interest, especially the New York Times (a reliable source surely?). At a minimum it may be a readable explanation for anyone who does not understand what the fuss is about.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/news/4821-the-united-states-government-seizes-84-000-sites-by-mistake.htm Elinruby ( talk) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's take this one edit at a time shall we?
1. Today I changed "some engineers" to specify the names of the actual engineers.
2.I also changed "other engineers and proponents of the bill", to specify that this is referring to George Ou and Richard Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel at NBC Universal.
3.I am dubious about the reference for Cotton's remarks, as, although his remark is in this article, " http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/" the entire thrust of the article, which is entitled "Engineers: PROTECT IP Act would break DNS", is making the opposite point. In order to balance this I have included one quote from one of the two engineers cited in the article.
4.I moved this ref " http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/protect-ip-act/" from the sentence where it is being used to cite the "groundless and without merit" comment as there is nothing in this article that says that. Rather I have used it to cite a quote by the paper's authors which I have put in place of the uncited quote "break the internet". While moving it I corrected the URL to " http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dns-filtering/" as the tag that was there is actually a link to a list of articles rather than to a single article.
5.I added a citation required tag after this sentence "According to Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, attempts to limit copyright infringement online by way of blocking domains have always received the criticism that blocking domains would fracture the Domain Name System (DNS)".
6.I moved the link " http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/" from where it was being used to cite the without merit sentence as it actually says the opposite. I placed it in the sentence citing the whitepaper to which it actually refers.
7.I removed this link " http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/l18internet.html?_r=1" being used to cite the without merit statement as it is actually a selection of letters to the editor of the NYT and contains an equal number of pro and con letters. Therefore it would be disingenuous to use it to cite the without merit remark without also mentioning the opposing views of the other half of the letters.
If anyone has any problems with any portions of this edit please address them specifically. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
all the quotes from the bill make the section hard to read, not to mention primary sources or anything, and several of the assertions in this section have been authoritatively questioned. The secondary sources are out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the proposed measures don't block anyone, that's part of the problem, except of course the technically naive and possibly law-abiding. Those sites are still accessible by ip address. Most likely the proposed measures therefore would not prevent infringement either. I also added a quote from a CNET article, which I've now decided is in the wrong place. I'll move it in a minute, but I want to keep my changes to small chunks, so they can be discussed if that seems like a good idea. I also put a cn tag after opposing engineer -- If I have to find documentation that the people who run this system are experts in it, then you gotta document the opposing guy too ;) Not saying he's not competent, but I have never heard of him and what he says sounds fishy to me. Elinruby ( talk) 07:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to get along here and I expect the same. I am making many small changes and documenting as I go primarily for your benefit, even though I feel that some of your requests are unreasonable. So ya -- I was coming in to put a reference in. I said so in comments.
I will now tag this as being worked on which means BACK OFF and give me a chance. Elinruby ( talk) 08:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want documentation in Discussion you need to quit editing it, because you are causing edit conflicts making me crazy. I did not put in any text about Operation in Our Sites because I cannot do all things at once and because it is a related but not identical topic. It is pertinent as a precedent for how enforcement will go, is all. But it has everything to do with this bill as it is essentially implementing it pro-actively.
Tell you what, you seem all energetic -- YOU take the in use tag off when YOU are done. I'll go do other stuff and come back maybe tomorrow. Elinruby ( talk) 09:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the following content here for discussion. See the specific concerns after the content:
US Fitness to control internet already questioned
The White House International Strategy for Cyberspace says the "United States supports an Internet with end-to-end interoperability":
- The alternative to global openness and interoperability is a fragmented Internet, where large swaths of the world’s population would be denied access to sophisticated applications and rich content because of a few nations’ political interests." [7]
Edward J. Black, CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that COICA would "set an international precedent ... that says it's a good thing for governments to effectively seize websites." In addition, he said, while the 2010 attacks on the DNS server for Wikileaks did crash the name server they did not prevent traffic using the IP address, "a top search result on all major search engines." [8] [9] China recently said that it runs its internet, so notoriously censored that it's dubbed the Great Firewall of China, "in line with internationally accepted practices.” [10]
US-based Verisign controls the .com, .net and .name, top-level domains as well as the popular .cc and .tv domains, under an agreement with ICANN that required approval from the US Department of Commerce, which is currently requesting bids for a new contract. Many of the original 13 root name servers are now distributed anycast systems, each with nodes in multiple countries. Sixty of these devices are located in the United States. [11] The root zone of the internet is administered by IANA, part of ICANN.
There are a number of concerns with this content, not the least of which is its very tenuous applicability to this article. I understand that you are trying to give useful background, but the citations in use here mention nothing about the PROTECT IP Act, and the content diverges down unnecessary paths for this article. Xenophrenic ( talk) 17:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); Text "web" ignored (
help)
{{
citation}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Text "accessda" ignored (
help); Text "web" ignored (
help)
it's untrue that by design all name servers would contain identical lists since a) it's not exactly a list and b) they are not identical. Some are authoritative and some are not. The uniformity is in agreement on which servers are authoritative. If you don't like my rewrite please say why and suggest another that addresses this issue. - elinruby 75.149.44.10 ( talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
you make discussion harder when you group them together as one mass list of things you "took care of." Elinruby ( talk) 02:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the word. The whole point of the single root is consistency. Adding reference for that next. Gonna use an RFC, sorry -- it *is* the authority.
This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS. Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than one root in the public DNS. "
There should be a link to DNS root zone also. We aren't talking about one of many servers, we are talking about *the* server. Elinruby ( talk) 09:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The EFF as an organization has opposed all of the different incarnations of this bill and there are many articles on their website about them, by multiple authors. Elinruby ( talk) 06:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
When we know that other editors may disagree, we should take care to spell out our reasons. Right? Elinruby ( talk) 02:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Previous text was essentially cut and paste from the bill. I think this is a fair summary, and although I am not quite happy with it, the sentence is definitely much more readable. Constructive criticism/edits invited. Other editors should be aware that "hacking" has a very specific meaning in some circles and probably should not appear in a sentence which seems to assume that defeating DRM would have a financial purpose. Elinruby ( talk) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
the specific issue is "business, industry and labor groups, spanning many sectors of the economy" when it's clear from the lovingly enumerated list of names that this is a Big Content issue, with some affected unions and the US Chamber of Commerce thrown in. The "many sectors of the economy" is put in opposition to "numerous individuals, businesses, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions." Notice that it's the individuals who are mentioned first.
There is also a NPOV problem due to the disparate space given each side. I may come back to this but am flagging it in the meantime. Elinruby ( talk) 05:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The sentence:
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation likewise supports the PROTECT IP Act and has noted that concerns about the domain name remedy in the legislation are undercut by the ongoing use of that approach to counter spam and malware. (cn)
has no references at all, not even a link to the organization's website. POV problem in that "noted" implies truth and "undercut" falsehood. Elinruby ( talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think Xenephrenic agreed it was a bit excessive. In any event, here it is, just in case:
and co-sponsorship by Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Bob Corker (R-TN), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I see... film, music, a little pharmacy, ok, Ford's an oddball. I am not feeling the "many" Elinruby ( talk) 14:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
a - a blog. A big well-known blog, with a sort of biased right-wing integrity, I grant you. I might consider it as one of several sources in another context.
BUT
b - it's part of Disney, very much an interested party in this legislation. I'll move the ref here so you don't have to retype it if it turns out the wikipedia page is wrong Elinruby ( talk) 14:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) "legislation to protect intellectual property and shut down rogue websites." [1] adds zero information, says "rogue" again. Elinruby ( talk) 15:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Elinruby ( talk) 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
political blog, currently talking about gloria allred. Material in reference is better covered in scribd reference, which remains, although self-published. Elinruby ( talk) 16:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC) footnote text in case I am wrong: [2] Elinruby ( talk) 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
From the reference YOU cite above:
more akin to Newsmax than the Huffington Post. The Daily Caller is a lurid partisan tabloid
whose reporting is almost universally disputed by the subjects of their reporting. To use
their "facts" on Wikipedia would be to basically throw out RS and BLP.
Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
usable in particular instances. But... I looked at one of these cites in depth...
What is conspicuously absent, however, is anything that even remotely suggests the conclusion
that is trumpeted by the headline of the piece. There is absolutely nothing supports this -
whatsoever. So based on this, I would have no problem with citing the article for a fact -
( "John Smith said that water can quench thirst.") - but conclusions, opinions, and so on
("John Smith engaged in a plot to convince people to buy more bottled water") - would have to be
cited as the opinion of the author. Dlabtot (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source in any sense of the word
I only have the evidence that everyone else does...Outlandish claims with very little substantiation
...either way it isn't a very reliable source on the subject.
Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010
The conclusion reached in this thread appears to be that the *specific article* was fixed, as it ends:
the Caller's presentation of the facts in the journolist email stories has been at best sub-par,
damaging our ability to see them as an honest broker. I'll ignore your other questions.
Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, I agree with you, but it seems there is no reason to continue the dispute on this noticeboard
as there appears to be no outstanding RS question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If that's the *strongest* argument you can make for reliability....
But let's focus on where we agree. The *content* of the Scribd piece is acceptable to me, at least on the surface. I have not investigated its claims in depth but it raises questions phrased in a respectable manner that suggest a valid alternate view. The author also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing. Surely he did not go to all the effort of writing it just to self publish? If you can find it in a journal, we don't need to have this discussion. Elinruby ( talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
translate to "reliable source." Elinruby ( talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I took out this text because I think it's an inaccurate summary of his piece, and also am not sure the private right of action extends to search engines -- think I saw elsewhere that no.
sigh, oops, text not in my buffer, really need to leave, will try to amend this later
Elinruby (
talk)
17:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
References
(Copied here from above section for further discussion.)
look, I changed the sentence to address the issue. You did a big edit after which the change was gone. I concluded that you liked this formulation or disliked mine. So given your comments above may I take it that you have no objection to a re-write on this point when I get a chance? Because it *is* important, if a nitpick. It concerns the workings of DNS in a context of explaining proposed changes to those workings. This will be my next task, then. Elinruby ( talk) 01:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a reference to any government reports on this topic. The MPAA pages currently cited in (I believe) footnotes 47 and 48 hardly qualify as "reports"; the Envisional group appear to be paid lobbyists. While their output may qualify as a "report" I question its characterization as "independent." Elinruby ( talk) 22:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything in this section that belongs here? It sounds like a bunch of random observations about piracy, which are not actually linked to the bill. For example, how much of the $12.7 billion figure for piracy (which I find remarkably small, actually) would actually be prevented by such a bill, even if it is not readily circumvented? If we accepted such a grab bag of random data, I'd want to know how much money American consumers save by piracy... Wnt ( talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It is incorrect to call the five authors of the white paper "researchers." This term is usually applied to grad students and lone-wolf types who look for software vulnerabilities.
I am at a loss as to how this group might be described other than as "experts." Researcher definitely makes them sound much less important than they are. Elinruby ( talk) 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Many of the websites shutdown in copyright infringement actions were quite legal and quite a few did not in fact infringe, so I call non-neutral point of view on this. Elinruby ( talk) 09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following text "follow existing federal court procedures, including providing" as the associated citation does not support it. If a different section does support this language, and somebody considers the text important, I am open to its reinsertion with a reference. Elinruby ( talk) 02:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It's an online chapter of a technical text by a respected mainstream publisher. It does discuss the importance of the root servers. (section 2.6) If people agree that it's an authoritative reference, I'll attempt a 1-2 sentence summary in a few days. It's not the article's primary focus, but in my opinion such a summary is needed for non-network types to understand the technical concerns.
http://oreilly.com/catalog/dns3/chapter/ch02.html
Elinruby ( talk) 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Sources 35 and 36 represent the views of a single engineer with reasonable credentials. Source 37 does not provide any contradiction or refutation of the whitepaper; however it is cited as support for such. Same issue with Sources 38 and 39. Source 40 includes opinions both in favor of and against the bill, only two of whom appear to have a technical background and therefore the credentials to give an expert opinion.
Accounting for all factors, there are two expert opinions that detract from the opinion in the whitepaper. The others are irrelevant and do not support the claim made.
129.21.68.212 ( talk) 05:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted several removals of citation needed due to the fact that I could not find any information to support those individual statements, and apparently neither could other people.
Also rebuilt several sections removed by another editor. It seemed one individual part was addressing SOPA and not Protect IP explicitly, which caused them to remove every edit I did although they were constructive sourced edits. Even removed some sources and replaced with citation needed tags. Took the liberty of resourcing, with more sources including CNN which I hope we can agree is somewhat reliable. I didn't reinstate the section that was talking about SOPA even though the two bills are very similar out of respect for the editor, and hope that the misunderstanding that caused him or her to revert every edit I did does not repeat or continue. Hopefully we can continue editing this article together in collaboration, and improve it. I know it is a "Hot" issue and relevant current event, which is why we must keep our statements sourced.
I also question the NPOV of the statements of the MPAA and RIAA who are also the funders of the bill. Despite the widespread opposition the article makes it seem like the supporting and opposing sides are both widespread views equally supported by the public. This however is not the case. Studies of perceptions of piracy in the US show that the public widely holds it as socially acceptable [4] with an over whelming majority against censoring infringing websites, and against anything larger than a small nominal fine (under $100) per infringement. The support for the bill seems to be entirely from the lobbying groups for the recording industry. The opposition seems to be every internet giant, prominent computer scientists, internet engineers, law professors, many journalists, computer experts in government [5] and the general public. To someone reading the article this would not be clear at all and the fact that the supporters are primarily the RIAA and MPAA, and those they lobbied is not immediately apparent in the article.
7goods ( talk) 06:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that the page PIPA should redirect to this page and a disambiguation page be created, similar to the SOPA bill. It is obviously a topic that has gained much attention as of late, and is the most likely what users are looking for when they search PIPA. -- Stevoisiake ( talk) 19:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This violates free speech completly and can be used to shut down opposing views. For example www.example.com are an anarchy site the current goverment leaders dont like this so they fing any image, text or video and shut them down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.204.97 ( talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
What the bill addresses are those ACCUSED of violation if intellectual property laws, by punishing them without due process of law. You remember due process, yes? You know, courts, juries, lawyers... This is all behind closed doors. Meanwhile, if I'm a bad guy overseas and wish to be shielded from US attention, all I'd need to do is put infringing software on my site, then get blocked by anyone in or of the US, which includes law enforcement and intelligence communities, as they are constitutionally required to obey the law. Positively brilliant! Wzrd1 ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
supporters - 17 lines opponents - 3 lines Elinruby ( talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a phrase in the Opponents section: "as well as numerous other businesses and individuals, pro bono, civil, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions." which is cited, but I checked the source and it does not contain any of those words. Nowhere in the LA Times article is there anything about rights groups, schools, libraries, or anything. I am going to be bold and remove it. What do you think? Braincricket ( talk) 02:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to include some mention of any possible means of circumventing this legislation if it does pass. For example, what happens if an "infringing" site is located outside the US? Could this legislation also apply to torrent (P2P) sites that do not actually store copyrighted material onsite? Jonny Quick ( talk) 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Due to complains from most of opponents, senators have posponed a vote on PIPA. Add this to the acticle. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57362677-261/senate-vote-on-pipa-is-postponed/ Rouward ( talk) 15:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Internet protocol? Internet piracy? Intellectual property? Probably the last, I would guess. Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I just added this: Talk:Blackout#Wikipedia_blackout_Wednesday_1-18-2012 . . . Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
RJHall, the full name of the act is the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011", so IP does stand for Intellectual Property, and is not a reference to Internet Protocol addresses. -MASher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.13.156 ( talk) 12:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/12334/
from
http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/sopa-opera-update
Check this out. — Cirt ( talk) 20:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm neither in favor or against the bill (haven't read it), but I am aware that WP campaigned against it, thereby removing all ideas of objectivity it can claim. A large disclaimer is in order for this so-called objective encyclopedia. 68.103.234.212 ( talk) 06:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Schmidt's main point is that there may be free-speech violations. He says we've seen similar actions and their consequences in China. In my opinion the lead section should be more general about his criticisms, and in the criticisms sections we can explore them in their full glory. Maximilianklein ( talk) 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It may be noted that the PROTECT IP act was passed by the US Senate, but Rep. Ron Wyden has put a hold on the bill Source: http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=33a39533-1b25-437b-ad1d-9039b44cde92 Ssa3512 ( talk) 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
How would this act affect http://www.google.com.hk/ ? Would Americans still be free to access that site and get uncensored search results? Wnt ( talk) 23:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please comment on the issues of original research, reliable links, weasle words and advertising that have been discussed in this section. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following content has been inserted (and re-inserted) into the article. It is cited to primary sources and blogs, and contains original research. Does anyone have some high quality sourcing covering this topic that we could use for similar content?
Xenophrenic ( talk) 11:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if my expressed agreement was unclear. Here is what I said above:
As you can see, my agreement with you was that the two old sections were bloated, and I suggested a fix. I have since implemented that fix by putting the pro/con arguments about technical issues into a separate section, and putting the pro/con civil liberties issues into a separate section. I in no way implied agreement to creating a section devoted to advertizing, describing or promoting various software add-ons or browser plug-ins in our article about the PROTECT IP Act.
We have reliable sources already cited in our article that convey the technical concern that the DNS filtering provisions of the bill would prove ineffectual to any internet user armed with a "workaround" add-on. We also have reliably sourced competing content suggesting that circumvention of the DNS filtering will not become very widespread, or that the availability of such add-ons doesn't mean that filtering shouldn't be implemented. With both sides of that "technical issue" thusly explained, I fail to see why you are pressing to also add a shopping menu of add-ons, highlighted by having its very own subject header, complete with direct links to "Download now!" product website pages. How does this further inform our readers about the PROTECT IP Act? Xenophrenic ( talk) 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't find the Protect IP Act mentioned at all in several of the non-RS sources cited, so they were removed. I'll see if I can find some better references. Since there doesn't seem to be any objection to reworking the bloated praise & criticism sections, I'll have a go at it. Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this bill a direct descendant of COICA, or merely in the same spirit? Wasn't sure how to phrase the relation? Maximilianklein ( talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the large list of all the official supporters of the bill. Not only does it make for a too-long sentence, but it's not important to mention the most minor ones, they can be found in the references. If it feels like to balance the neutral point of view we have to mention equal amounts of supporters on both sides then let's at least come to a conclusion that doesn't involve an exhaustive list of over 10 groups in a sentence. Perhaps a list is better for this if we want to make an all encompassing view. Maximilianklein ( talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I can't find netflix in the link that was given. Someone added them without the prior citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullslash ( talk • contribs) 06:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"The bill is supported by a wide range of business, industry and labor groups, spanning many sectors of the economy. It is opposed by numerous individuals, businesses, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions."
It's supported by groups who think they are losing money to piracy, and opposed by the internet industry and by people interested in civil liberties. To put it bluntly. There's probably a more politically correct way to phrase it, but this is in the lead and should get to the nitty-gritty. Elinruby ( talk) 08:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
the two subsections help, but should both be broken into paragraphs for readability. And, in my opinion, expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
that could be used to show that the same bill keeps being reintroduced. A list of recording industry executives now at DoJ might also be instructive, if I recall my prior research on this. Also campaign contributions, especially for Leahy. I hope these thoughts help. I am too tired to do any actual writing just now but will try to come back with some sources. Maybe conference papers would work as sources, hmm? Elinruby ( talk) 09:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have written an editorial on this topic, which is why I am calling this a disclosure. It is my understanding that this does not bar me from participating in edits on the topic as long as I "play nice" and acknowledge that people are entitled to disagree with me.
I question whether the site where the editorial appears would count as a reliable source -- it's small and geared to web developers not network people -- and I am probably not the person to decide that. But I am not proposing it as a source. There are better sources out there imho and also, I cite some blogs that seem to have been rejected as non-RS. But some of my *other* sources may be of interest, especially the New York Times (a reliable source surely?). At a minimum it may be a readable explanation for anyone who does not understand what the fuss is about.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/news/4821-the-united-states-government-seizes-84-000-sites-by-mistake.htm Elinruby ( talk) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's take this one edit at a time shall we?
1. Today I changed "some engineers" to specify the names of the actual engineers.
2.I also changed "other engineers and proponents of the bill", to specify that this is referring to George Ou and Richard Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel at NBC Universal.
3.I am dubious about the reference for Cotton's remarks, as, although his remark is in this article, " http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/" the entire thrust of the article, which is entitled "Engineers: PROTECT IP Act would break DNS", is making the opposite point. In order to balance this I have included one quote from one of the two engineers cited in the article.
4.I moved this ref " http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/protect-ip-act/" from the sentence where it is being used to cite the "groundless and without merit" comment as there is nothing in this article that says that. Rather I have used it to cite a quote by the paper's authors which I have put in place of the uncited quote "break the internet". While moving it I corrected the URL to " http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dns-filtering/" as the tag that was there is actually a link to a list of articles rather than to a single article.
5.I added a citation required tag after this sentence "According to Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, attempts to limit copyright infringement online by way of blocking domains have always received the criticism that blocking domains would fracture the Domain Name System (DNS)".
6.I moved the link " http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/" from where it was being used to cite the without merit sentence as it actually says the opposite. I placed it in the sentence citing the whitepaper to which it actually refers.
7.I removed this link " http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/l18internet.html?_r=1" being used to cite the without merit statement as it is actually a selection of letters to the editor of the NYT and contains an equal number of pro and con letters. Therefore it would be disingenuous to use it to cite the without merit remark without also mentioning the opposing views of the other half of the letters.
If anyone has any problems with any portions of this edit please address them specifically. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
all the quotes from the bill make the section hard to read, not to mention primary sources or anything, and several of the assertions in this section have been authoritatively questioned. The secondary sources are out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the proposed measures don't block anyone, that's part of the problem, except of course the technically naive and possibly law-abiding. Those sites are still accessible by ip address. Most likely the proposed measures therefore would not prevent infringement either. I also added a quote from a CNET article, which I've now decided is in the wrong place. I'll move it in a minute, but I want to keep my changes to small chunks, so they can be discussed if that seems like a good idea. I also put a cn tag after opposing engineer -- If I have to find documentation that the people who run this system are experts in it, then you gotta document the opposing guy too ;) Not saying he's not competent, but I have never heard of him and what he says sounds fishy to me. Elinruby ( talk) 07:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to get along here and I expect the same. I am making many small changes and documenting as I go primarily for your benefit, even though I feel that some of your requests are unreasonable. So ya -- I was coming in to put a reference in. I said so in comments.
I will now tag this as being worked on which means BACK OFF and give me a chance. Elinruby ( talk) 08:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want documentation in Discussion you need to quit editing it, because you are causing edit conflicts making me crazy. I did not put in any text about Operation in Our Sites because I cannot do all things at once and because it is a related but not identical topic. It is pertinent as a precedent for how enforcement will go, is all. But it has everything to do with this bill as it is essentially implementing it pro-actively.
Tell you what, you seem all energetic -- YOU take the in use tag off when YOU are done. I'll go do other stuff and come back maybe tomorrow. Elinruby ( talk) 09:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the following content here for discussion. See the specific concerns after the content:
US Fitness to control internet already questioned
The White House International Strategy for Cyberspace says the "United States supports an Internet with end-to-end interoperability":
- The alternative to global openness and interoperability is a fragmented Internet, where large swaths of the world’s population would be denied access to sophisticated applications and rich content because of a few nations’ political interests." [7]
Edward J. Black, CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that COICA would "set an international precedent ... that says it's a good thing for governments to effectively seize websites." In addition, he said, while the 2010 attacks on the DNS server for Wikileaks did crash the name server they did not prevent traffic using the IP address, "a top search result on all major search engines." [8] [9] China recently said that it runs its internet, so notoriously censored that it's dubbed the Great Firewall of China, "in line with internationally accepted practices.” [10]
US-based Verisign controls the .com, .net and .name, top-level domains as well as the popular .cc and .tv domains, under an agreement with ICANN that required approval from the US Department of Commerce, which is currently requesting bids for a new contract. Many of the original 13 root name servers are now distributed anycast systems, each with nodes in multiple countries. Sixty of these devices are located in the United States. [11] The root zone of the internet is administered by IANA, part of ICANN.
There are a number of concerns with this content, not the least of which is its very tenuous applicability to this article. I understand that you are trying to give useful background, but the citations in use here mention nothing about the PROTECT IP Act, and the content diverges down unnecessary paths for this article. Xenophrenic ( talk) 17:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); Text "web" ignored (
help)
{{
citation}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Text "accessda" ignored (
help); Text "web" ignored (
help)
it's untrue that by design all name servers would contain identical lists since a) it's not exactly a list and b) they are not identical. Some are authoritative and some are not. The uniformity is in agreement on which servers are authoritative. If you don't like my rewrite please say why and suggest another that addresses this issue. - elinruby 75.149.44.10 ( talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
you make discussion harder when you group them together as one mass list of things you "took care of." Elinruby ( talk) 02:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the word. The whole point of the single root is consistency. Adding reference for that next. Gonna use an RFC, sorry -- it *is* the authority.
This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS. Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than one root in the public DNS. "
There should be a link to DNS root zone also. We aren't talking about one of many servers, we are talking about *the* server. Elinruby ( talk) 09:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The EFF as an organization has opposed all of the different incarnations of this bill and there are many articles on their website about them, by multiple authors. Elinruby ( talk) 06:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
When we know that other editors may disagree, we should take care to spell out our reasons. Right? Elinruby ( talk) 02:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Previous text was essentially cut and paste from the bill. I think this is a fair summary, and although I am not quite happy with it, the sentence is definitely much more readable. Constructive criticism/edits invited. Other editors should be aware that "hacking" has a very specific meaning in some circles and probably should not appear in a sentence which seems to assume that defeating DRM would have a financial purpose. Elinruby ( talk) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
the specific issue is "business, industry and labor groups, spanning many sectors of the economy" when it's clear from the lovingly enumerated list of names that this is a Big Content issue, with some affected unions and the US Chamber of Commerce thrown in. The "many sectors of the economy" is put in opposition to "numerous individuals, businesses, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions." Notice that it's the individuals who are mentioned first.
There is also a NPOV problem due to the disparate space given each side. I may come back to this but am flagging it in the meantime. Elinruby ( talk) 05:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The sentence:
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation likewise supports the PROTECT IP Act and has noted that concerns about the domain name remedy in the legislation are undercut by the ongoing use of that approach to counter spam and malware. (cn)
has no references at all, not even a link to the organization's website. POV problem in that "noted" implies truth and "undercut" falsehood. Elinruby ( talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think Xenephrenic agreed it was a bit excessive. In any event, here it is, just in case:
and co-sponsorship by Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Bob Corker (R-TN), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I see... film, music, a little pharmacy, ok, Ford's an oddball. I am not feeling the "many" Elinruby ( talk) 14:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
a - a blog. A big well-known blog, with a sort of biased right-wing integrity, I grant you. I might consider it as one of several sources in another context.
BUT
b - it's part of Disney, very much an interested party in this legislation. I'll move the ref here so you don't have to retype it if it turns out the wikipedia page is wrong Elinruby ( talk) 14:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) "legislation to protect intellectual property and shut down rogue websites." [1] adds zero information, says "rogue" again. Elinruby ( talk) 15:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Elinruby ( talk) 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
political blog, currently talking about gloria allred. Material in reference is better covered in scribd reference, which remains, although self-published. Elinruby ( talk) 16:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC) footnote text in case I am wrong: [2] Elinruby ( talk) 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
From the reference YOU cite above:
more akin to Newsmax than the Huffington Post. The Daily Caller is a lurid partisan tabloid
whose reporting is almost universally disputed by the subjects of their reporting. To use
their "facts" on Wikipedia would be to basically throw out RS and BLP.
Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
usable in particular instances. But... I looked at one of these cites in depth...
What is conspicuously absent, however, is anything that even remotely suggests the conclusion
that is trumpeted by the headline of the piece. There is absolutely nothing supports this -
whatsoever. So based on this, I would have no problem with citing the article for a fact -
( "John Smith said that water can quench thirst.") - but conclusions, opinions, and so on
("John Smith engaged in a plot to convince people to buy more bottled water") - would have to be
cited as the opinion of the author. Dlabtot (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source in any sense of the word
I only have the evidence that everyone else does...Outlandish claims with very little substantiation
...either way it isn't a very reliable source on the subject.
Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010
The conclusion reached in this thread appears to be that the *specific article* was fixed, as it ends:
the Caller's presentation of the facts in the journolist email stories has been at best sub-par,
damaging our ability to see them as an honest broker. I'll ignore your other questions.
Protonk (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, I agree with you, but it seems there is no reason to continue the dispute on this noticeboard
as there appears to be no outstanding RS question. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If that's the *strongest* argument you can make for reliability....
But let's focus on where we agree. The *content* of the Scribd piece is acceptable to me, at least on the surface. I have not investigated its claims in depth but it raises questions phrased in a respectable manner that suggest a valid alternate view. The author also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing. Surely he did not go to all the effort of writing it just to self publish? If you can find it in a journal, we don't need to have this discussion. Elinruby ( talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
translate to "reliable source." Elinruby ( talk) 02:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I took out this text because I think it's an inaccurate summary of his piece, and also am not sure the private right of action extends to search engines -- think I saw elsewhere that no.
sigh, oops, text not in my buffer, really need to leave, will try to amend this later
Elinruby (
talk)
17:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
References
(Copied here from above section for further discussion.)
look, I changed the sentence to address the issue. You did a big edit after which the change was gone. I concluded that you liked this formulation or disliked mine. So given your comments above may I take it that you have no objection to a re-write on this point when I get a chance? Because it *is* important, if a nitpick. It concerns the workings of DNS in a context of explaining proposed changes to those workings. This will be my next task, then. Elinruby ( talk) 01:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a reference to any government reports on this topic. The MPAA pages currently cited in (I believe) footnotes 47 and 48 hardly qualify as "reports"; the Envisional group appear to be paid lobbyists. While their output may qualify as a "report" I question its characterization as "independent." Elinruby ( talk) 22:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything in this section that belongs here? It sounds like a bunch of random observations about piracy, which are not actually linked to the bill. For example, how much of the $12.7 billion figure for piracy (which I find remarkably small, actually) would actually be prevented by such a bill, even if it is not readily circumvented? If we accepted such a grab bag of random data, I'd want to know how much money American consumers save by piracy... Wnt ( talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It is incorrect to call the five authors of the white paper "researchers." This term is usually applied to grad students and lone-wolf types who look for software vulnerabilities.
I am at a loss as to how this group might be described other than as "experts." Researcher definitely makes them sound much less important than they are. Elinruby ( talk) 22:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Many of the websites shutdown in copyright infringement actions were quite legal and quite a few did not in fact infringe, so I call non-neutral point of view on this. Elinruby ( talk) 09:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following text "follow existing federal court procedures, including providing" as the associated citation does not support it. If a different section does support this language, and somebody considers the text important, I am open to its reinsertion with a reference. Elinruby ( talk) 02:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It's an online chapter of a technical text by a respected mainstream publisher. It does discuss the importance of the root servers. (section 2.6) If people agree that it's an authoritative reference, I'll attempt a 1-2 sentence summary in a few days. It's not the article's primary focus, but in my opinion such a summary is needed for non-network types to understand the technical concerns.
http://oreilly.com/catalog/dns3/chapter/ch02.html
Elinruby ( talk) 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Sources 35 and 36 represent the views of a single engineer with reasonable credentials. Source 37 does not provide any contradiction or refutation of the whitepaper; however it is cited as support for such. Same issue with Sources 38 and 39. Source 40 includes opinions both in favor of and against the bill, only two of whom appear to have a technical background and therefore the credentials to give an expert opinion.
Accounting for all factors, there are two expert opinions that detract from the opinion in the whitepaper. The others are irrelevant and do not support the claim made.
129.21.68.212 ( talk) 05:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted several removals of citation needed due to the fact that I could not find any information to support those individual statements, and apparently neither could other people.
Also rebuilt several sections removed by another editor. It seemed one individual part was addressing SOPA and not Protect IP explicitly, which caused them to remove every edit I did although they were constructive sourced edits. Even removed some sources and replaced with citation needed tags. Took the liberty of resourcing, with more sources including CNN which I hope we can agree is somewhat reliable. I didn't reinstate the section that was talking about SOPA even though the two bills are very similar out of respect for the editor, and hope that the misunderstanding that caused him or her to revert every edit I did does not repeat or continue. Hopefully we can continue editing this article together in collaboration, and improve it. I know it is a "Hot" issue and relevant current event, which is why we must keep our statements sourced.
I also question the NPOV of the statements of the MPAA and RIAA who are also the funders of the bill. Despite the widespread opposition the article makes it seem like the supporting and opposing sides are both widespread views equally supported by the public. This however is not the case. Studies of perceptions of piracy in the US show that the public widely holds it as socially acceptable [4] with an over whelming majority against censoring infringing websites, and against anything larger than a small nominal fine (under $100) per infringement. The support for the bill seems to be entirely from the lobbying groups for the recording industry. The opposition seems to be every internet giant, prominent computer scientists, internet engineers, law professors, many journalists, computer experts in government [5] and the general public. To someone reading the article this would not be clear at all and the fact that the supporters are primarily the RIAA and MPAA, and those they lobbied is not immediately apparent in the article.
7goods ( talk) 06:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I think that the page PIPA should redirect to this page and a disambiguation page be created, similar to the SOPA bill. It is obviously a topic that has gained much attention as of late, and is the most likely what users are looking for when they search PIPA. -- Stevoisiake ( talk) 19:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This violates free speech completly and can be used to shut down opposing views. For example www.example.com are an anarchy site the current goverment leaders dont like this so they fing any image, text or video and shut them down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.204.97 ( talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
What the bill addresses are those ACCUSED of violation if intellectual property laws, by punishing them without due process of law. You remember due process, yes? You know, courts, juries, lawyers... This is all behind closed doors. Meanwhile, if I'm a bad guy overseas and wish to be shielded from US attention, all I'd need to do is put infringing software on my site, then get blocked by anyone in or of the US, which includes law enforcement and intelligence communities, as they are constitutionally required to obey the law. Positively brilliant! Wzrd1 ( talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
supporters - 17 lines opponents - 3 lines Elinruby ( talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a phrase in the Opponents section: "as well as numerous other businesses and individuals, pro bono, civil, human rights and consumer rights groups, and education and library institutions." which is cited, but I checked the source and it does not contain any of those words. Nowhere in the LA Times article is there anything about rights groups, schools, libraries, or anything. I am going to be bold and remove it. What do you think? Braincricket ( talk) 02:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to include some mention of any possible means of circumventing this legislation if it does pass. For example, what happens if an "infringing" site is located outside the US? Could this legislation also apply to torrent (P2P) sites that do not actually store copyrighted material onsite? Jonny Quick ( talk) 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Due to complains from most of opponents, senators have posponed a vote on PIPA. Add this to the acticle. Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57362677-261/senate-vote-on-pipa-is-postponed/ Rouward ( talk) 15:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Internet protocol? Internet piracy? Intellectual property? Probably the last, I would guess. Regards, RJH ( talk) 21:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I just added this: Talk:Blackout#Wikipedia_blackout_Wednesday_1-18-2012 . . . Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 23:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
RJHall, the full name of the act is the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011", so IP does stand for Intellectual Property, and is not a reference to Internet Protocol addresses. -MASher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.13.156 ( talk) 12:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.makeuseof.com/tech-fun/12334/
from
http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/sopa-opera-update
Check this out. — Cirt ( talk) 20:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm neither in favor or against the bill (haven't read it), but I am aware that WP campaigned against it, thereby removing all ideas of objectivity it can claim. A large disclaimer is in order for this so-called objective encyclopedia. 68.103.234.212 ( talk) 06:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)