Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative

Trigger

I believe that we should act sooner. Currently, this proposing is advising us to wait until the bill passes through both Houses of Congress before acting. I believe that this is too risky. If the bill passes through both Houses, then Wikipedia's fate shall be left in the hand of a single individual. Let's send a strong message to Congress and its constituents first. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Better to be early than late. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Applicability to Wikipedia

While Geoff doesn't quite come out and say this (he says parts of it, but it's rather buried in his text), it appears that this statute as presently proposed has no applicability to Wikipedia. We are not a foreign site, and we are not an internet search engine. We do not in response to a query list sites elsewhere on the internet; we list our own pages. We don't even have a google option. Accordingly, if we were to strike, we would be striking in sympathy with other sites, rather than because of a direct threat. That would be a bad idea, because then we have lowered the bar for action, which will take place whenever someone can pull in off the net sufficient support (say a verdict goes the wrong way in some criminal trial, or that death penalty is really bad isn't it, or let's go with that old chestnut, social justice).--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with you assessment of his analysis and per my original response on Jimbo's page would not support any PAClike action on our part if the law does not directly challenge our ability to function. (I'm still personally against the bill, but that's a different matter, I agree that wasting any capital we may have fighting a fight that isn't ours is a BAD idea). Crazynas ^t 11:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Geoff is a smart cookie. However, I read a legal document (or similar) in lawyer mode, so it was "Disregard-meaningless", until I came to the nuggets buried in the text. Near the bottom, but not quite there. Rather like the "Yes Minister" method of getting a document past the minister by placing it deep in his second-to-last red box ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• "We do not in response to a query list sites elsewhere on the internet" - Really? We don't show external links relevant to the query? We routinely have an External Links section, and we almost always present sources as links for verification purposes. un☯mi 15:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not in response to the search query. Read the bill.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to what you said just above - if you wish to qualify your statement further then please feel free. un☯mi 16:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well: As Section 103 is inapplicable to WMF sites by Geoff's statements, only Section 102 is at issue. Suit lies against a non-US site, once the plaintiff has gotten a court order, then he can go to one of three places and serve them with a copy:

Internet search engine: "a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service in the U.S. to gather, index or report information available elsewhere on the Internet." Although we may give a external link, that is not our primary function.:

Service Provider: Per Geoff, least burdensome, technically feasible and reasonable to prevent resolving to the foreign infringing site domain name’s IP address, taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days. This does not sound unreasonable. We maintain a spam blacklist anyway, and we have internal search engines.

Internet advertising service: We aren't.

So this is inapplicable to Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

btw, I must've been re-reading "and does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service in the U.S." about 20 times over the past 24 hours. wtf does that mean? can some smart person enlighten me? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I read it to say, that if they have an agent in the US who can be served with legal papers, they are exempt.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ooooooooo-aahsee. (hey, there's a job-opportunity! I'm gonna be a "third party that is subject to service in the U.S." for a couple of random websites :P) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Glad to be known as a "smart cookie," and when I have more time I will try not to write too much like a lawyer.  :) I remember when my mother saw me as a human being and not a lawyer ... those days are long past.

Plain english interpretation (as much as I'm capable of): I don't believe Section 103 applies to us since U.S.-based companies were exempted in the last round of amendments. I do think that Section 102 could be construed as covering us. When I parse the words, there is an argument that the definition of internet search engine technically applies to us. (See footnote 3 of my blog which sets out the definition of "internet search engine.") If that is so, we are subject to court orders as an internet search engine that could require us to take down links to prohibited sites. (The second part of that definition referring to a "service that retains a third party ..." refers to sites that incorporate search functions on their sites that are furnished by U.S.-based third parties, I think; the language is not clear though, which is an overall problem with SOPA.) So, if section 102 applies to us as an internet search engine, as I believe it might as presently written, it is possible that we link in a Wikipedia article to non-infringing information on an international site but are forced to take down that link to the international site because of a rights owner's complaint resulting in a court order about infringing material found elsewhere on that international site. Of course, not only do we have to take down the link to the non-infringing material, but we need to fix the text in the article, and may be required to delete valid information from the article because we no longer have a reliable source. Hope this helps. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Right — my first vague guess was that the "third party"-snippet is for people who incorporate a small google searchbox into their blog or whatever (but that guess was vague, and I got confused, and then I gave up I guess). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you Geoff. Perhaps there is a term of art that I'm not quite getting (and I think I quoted the definition of Internet search engine). As I'm reading it, our primary function is not to send readers elsewhere on the Web, but rather to refer people, in response to a search, to one of our articles, or to a selection of possibilities (on our own site, though). I must be missing some essential point.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Wehwalt. This is not easy, so I understand your possible frustration about the statutory language. Section 102(15) defines "internet search engine." When parsed out to relevant parts, that definition states that the term "internet search engine" means "a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information ... [available elsewhere on the Internet] ...." I note that the language in the brackets ("available elsewhere on the Internet") may or may not modify the term "indexed information"; it is left ambiguous. So, that said, rights owners will argue that Wikipedia has the primary function of gathering and reporting indexed information available on the Internet since we furnish a search function which takes you to indexed information (our Articles) which include links to information available on the Internet (all indexed to information in our Articles). The language is admittedly ambiguous, but it could be made to apply to us. Tighter language would be desirable, but, as I noted, the SOPA is hopelessly vague and broad. Geoffbrigham (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you Geoff. Appreciate it. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Question to Geoff Brigham - There has been a lot of back and forth as to whether or not this bill would affect Wikipedia negatively. If I am reading you correctly, I believe you are saying it would impact us negatively. Could you give us a simple this would impact Wikipedia negatively or this would not impact Wikpedia negatively, so that the community can come here and have a clear understanding of your view of the situation? Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the sign is in dispute. I think the problem is estimating the magnitude. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm gathering it is a if the bill passes as presently phrased, and if the music companies gain an order against a foreign infringing site (not us) and get it in their heads to serve WMF with a copy of the order, and if the courts choose to interpret the statute in the way Geoff posits (something which is, I suppose, possible, but I'd sooner invest in the euro than place a bet that way), THEN we might have to remove links to the offending site. As Geoff points out, we could have to remove text sourced to the site, but in practice, we'd find another source. I do have some difficulty imagining a site which would both be subject to this law and also a WP:RS, however, my imagination is not that lively. Leaving that point entirely aside and turning to a completely unconnected point, I would imagine that WMF would be very reluctant to be seen as abandoning its internet "friends", even if we were no longer to be affected, although many community members have expressed support for a strike conditional on a clear and present danger to us. I'd also like to take a moment to thank Geoff for his patience in answering questions, and for his time spent here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@Hydroxonium. Yes, it would impact us negatively. But I agree with Seth and Wehwalt that it is a question of magnitude. If, for example, the federal prosecutor office exercises its lawful discretion and choses to seek orders under Section 102 only rarely, the impact will be smaller. If rights owners successfully push prosecutors throughout the country to seek court orders, the impact will be higher. (I do believe that the statutory definition of "internet search engine" probably does include Wikipedia.) The magnitude will depend also on the drafting of internal agency regulations on how to implement Section 102 and the resources devoted to this effort at the U.S. Department of Justice. Conceivably this program could get a high priority, and, in that case, multiple orders could conceivably be served on us for action. None of that is predictable at this time. And, of course, there are bigger issues than our own survival: it is always in Wikimedia's interest to defend the Internet and fight regimes that sacrifice non-infringing material for a legislative goal. Geoffbrigham (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the revised bill, but the older version which Laurence Tribe wrote a letter regarding would clearly apply to wikipedia. We host and delete copyrighted content all the time and we host (without deleting) material which could tendentiously be termed "copyrighted" by a litigious organization. To pick a simple example, our articles on Major League Baseball in the united states contain detailed statistics information which the MLB is not allowed to assert copyright over (because it is "sweat of the brow" information). Nonetheless the MLB claims ownership of the stats. Under the current framework the MLB could request that wikipedia remove statistical information and we (that is, the foundation) could deny the request as baseless. Under SOPA, they could just ask paypal to stop processing donations. The MLB might not do that, but what about the FBI? We didn't comply with that order because it was laughably false but a payment processor or domain name server just might (especially if they have immunity from WP but could face penalties for not complying with the request). I don't think we need to go too far to find examples under the current regime where rightsholders made fraudulent or erroneous claims. The important question here is not "is wikipedia a site like Mega-upload or The Pirate Bay?" but "could SOPA easily be misused to damage or threaten wikipedia and similar sites?" Normally we wouldn't be too concerned about the misuse of law because there are redresses and in many cases the potential damage is limited. But the structure of SOPA totally inverts this. Even patently false requests to payment sites and DNS services will be accepted and we would have almost no power to stop them or even predict them. Protonk (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Other language wikipedias?

The text under Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#Action By the Wikipedia Community is somewhat unclear, as regards other projects than the English Wikipedia. Jimbo earlier expressed the opinion that each WP language community would have to decide for itself, if I understood him correctly; see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Blanking all Wikipedias?. However, it is possible to read the suggested alternative

Full Database lock

Lock the entire database to reading and editing for some period of time.

as applying to all wikimedia projects, in all languages. I think this needs to be clarified: Either only en-WP is intended (which should be written explicitly), or blanking all projects is considered as an alternative (and should be explicitly noted as such). Right now, we on the Swedish Wikipedia do not quite understand whether we should continue discussing what actions we could and should take, or whether we just should wait and see if sv-WP gets blanked with all the rest anyhow.

Thanks in advance, JoergenB (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joergen: When I added that section it was a one sentence summation of the Italian solution as intended to apply to en.wikipedia. I feel, and I'm sure many would agree, that this language edition has no business effecting the other projects and any such coordinated discussion necessarily would take place on meta. I have updated accordingly. Crazynas ^t 11:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish Wikipedia and others are free to consider and implement blackouts on their own once they develop the consensus for it. A Swedish Wikipedia blackout probably should occur during the same time as the English Wikipedia blackout, so once you obtain consensus, you should return to page, so we may coordinate the strike together. Nevertheless, I don't believe that the US Congress will care for what Wikipedia's in languages other than English do. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Meta Page laying out pros and cons of on-wiki protesting

This page that lays out some pros and cons for various forms of protests, created following the Italian shutdown, might be useful for this conversation. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What are we trying to accomplish?

To keep this brief:

What is our goal?

There are two answers to this:

1. To maintain a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
2. To stop the passage of the SOPA bill.

The latter would impede the former, or at least have great potential to do so. The former does not imply any political goal. But Wikipedia has always stood for freedom.

The US Congress is not going to vote against SOPA just because Wikipedia is protesting. The goal in protesting should be to raise awareness. The way to stop SOPA is to convince elected officials to vote against it. Usually people email, write letters, or call their elected officials to protest against a bill.

Locking down Wikipedia does not advance our first goal of a free encyclopedia. Nor does it stop the passage of SOPA.

Annoying our readers is not going to help. If Wikipedia were shut down, significant disruption to the Internet would occur. As one of the top ten most visited websites, we have a responsibility to continue to provide our services in the interest of our reader base. We just need to take advantage of our huge reader base to protest to Congress. Blanking Wikipedia is not necessary to achieve this.

Protesting doesn't always mean locking something down to send a message. We don't need to inconvenience millions of people to make a point. Instead, we should ask these millions to simply contact their elected officials and argue against the bill.

If Wikipedia is locked to protest SOPA, I won't be returning to a project that betrays its own goals. I have much better ways to protest SOPA, some of which I am already pursuing.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It find it unlikely that a large number of readers are going to be moved to contact their local congressional representatives over an annoying fundraiser-like site banner that could be closed and ignored with a click of a mouse. With all due respect, this is not the right way to motivate our readers to take action. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Is disservicing them the right way, then? If a reader doesn't want to take action after reading a banner, then how much more likely are they to call their congressperson if Wikipedia is locked down? Calling my local senator or representative wouldn't unblank Wikipedia for me. There's still little incentive for the casual reader to take action if Wikipedia is blanked, and we're just driving them away. If information has the opportunity to be free, let's keep it free for now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's in the best interest of the community to take action, but would only endorse it if there is consensus to do so. I think the goal of (whatever) action would be to raise awareness and educate, then allow the public to make up their own mind on what position to take on the issue. I'm focusing on the big picture rather than specifics as too much time can be lost getting in to specifics. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Education and awareness certainly does not require a database lock, so we should pursue more reasonable and less pointy options. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

To raise awareness we probably need the papers to write about it. A banner might result in a note about Wikipedia joining the protests, a lockdown of the database is something few papers could avoid writing about and few people avoid noticing. The question is whether something less is enough.

And about whether this is something for us to fight: if we, as Geoffbrigham writes above, have to remove facts from articles because the source in looked badly upon by US administration or somebody with IP interests, then I wonder whether keeping NPOV is possible anymore (in certain areas). We should at least be able to keep the facts and identifying information for the web page (a {{ref censored}} with a e-mail-on-request feature as in the good ol' days?).

--LPfi (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We could do that indeed, although I suspect in practice we would simply replace the ref with one from a non-infringing site. Really, I suspect all that needs to be done is for WMF to notify the projects of any site found by a United States District Court to have infringed, and add it to the spam blacklist on meta. The community would take care of the rest. In practice, I think there will be little to do. So if you want to strike, you can choose one of two options: strike against minor and rare inconvenience to WMF staff and editors who choose to do the work, or strike for the benefit of someone else. I would also note that the case has yet to be established that there are goals of such a strike, and that there is a reasonable chance of accomplishing those goals through a strike.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

LPfi, the media reports on fundraising and we don't need to lock the database for that. Banners are plenty, given that they'll be seen by some 400 million people each day. And I don't mind if Wikipedia has to shut down due to SOPA's passage. But until that happens, we have a responsibility to educate readers, both about SOPA and about every other topic that is included in Wikipedia. Blanking the site now is not helpful by any means. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better to have Wikipedia blanked for a day than for good. We seem to be focusing here on everything but the biggest threat from SOPA-weakening of the DMCA safe harbor provision and a possible requirement for active pre-moderation for user generated content sites. That's a direct and existential threat to Wikipedia. Also, it seems the discussion is rather starting from a hijack and inappropriate "round 2". It's already been decided to strike, and that was overwhelmingly evident from the RfC. Now we need to get all the RfC participants together to decide what form that will take—not to try and relitigate if it will or will not happen, that question's already settled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, that was a straw poll. The only RfC started was defeated.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't, it was closed for being too short (a decision with which, incidentally, I agree), and most opposition was on that basis, not opposition to the principle of the thing. We certainly need more time to discuss what to do, but unlike most issues here, we do not have an unlimited amount of time to decide what to do—There is no deadline does not apply, there is one. At a widely publicized, high-participation (straw poll, RfC, don't care what you call it), a clear and unambiguous consensus emerged that action was necessary. What form that will take is fine to discuss, and indeed must be discussed. But what I don't want to see happen is stalling until action becomes moot. If we really must, I suppose we could hold a "formal" RfC on "We should take action/we shouldn't take action", but I think the straw poll had wide enough participation and notification to be a very clear "yes" on that already. Now, what is it we should do? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there is plenty of time to hold an RfC. The straw poll had a number of issues; it was not publicized across the site. Ironically, it was well publicized outside the site, leading to a flood of IPs, however not all editors read the news every day. Until the IPs started, there was no consensus; people with IP addresses voted overwhelmingly in favor. Many of the non-IP supports, in any case, were conditioned on there being shown an existential threat to Wikipedia. If you do not have a process that allows wide participation, you will not have wide buy in, and there will be a lot of lasting ill feelings.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think having Wikipedia blanked for a day will help changing the mind of the US Representatives advocating SOPA, then I should think you would agree that having Wikipedia blanked for good (due to SOPA) would definitely change the mind of Congress, and the law would be changed to fix that. I definitely believe both things to be true, and that's a reason against the blackout, not for it.--Euyyn (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.166.49 (talk)

I have two basic replies to this. The first is strong, but difficult to prove and very much probalistic. The second is limp but a little more believable.

• SOPA represents an existential threat to wikimedia projects. Advocacy against SOPA is still advocacy, but it is self defense. Obviouslt there is a lot of room for argument here, but I believe it.
• Wikipedia (and Wikimedia in general) does all sorts of things which aren't writing an encyclopedia. We advocate for open content both by example and by our willingness to link or integrate certain types of content over others. The WMF advocates for open access and open source at its very core by open sourcing mediawiki (and other tools) and releasing user content to the public. Arguably there are functional reasons for open sourcing content (mainly it cuts the gordian knot of redistribution and editing), but it would be a factual error to claim that functional motivations drove the bus at the start of the project.

I don't think these will convince you. But the points are out there. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of the WMF and Jimbo advocating for SOPA not to pass. Making Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, have an official opinion on it is a very bad idea to me. Now let me bear with you on the first point (I'm not sure about it; as you say, it's probabilistic): Let's assume SOPA is indeed an existencial threat to Wikipedia. If a Wikipedia blackout is able to prevent SOPA from passing (and I believe that's the case), then the future case of Wikipedia shutting down due to the effects of SOPA will be able to revert the law. Or at least make Congress change it so that Wikipedia can be on again.--Euyyn (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing office hour on SOPA

A not so short summary (I also left out the jokes) of the 2011-12-15 IRC office hour on SOPA with Sue Gardner and Geoff Brigham:

TIMELINE?

[18:55:58] <aude> mindspillage: geoffreybrigham: i know today's vote is important, but what (and when) is the next step?
[18:57:16] <geoffreybrigham> aude ... guessing now ... but probably the next big step is Senate committee hearings (next year) or a House vote (next year). We are assessing after today's hearing

OLD/NEW SOPA VERSION?

[18:47:20] <geoffreybrigham> In the old version, rights owners could harass us by calling us an infringing site. they could serve notice on our payment processors for fundraising to stop revenues. we would respond, take them to court, but it would consume time and resources. and we would have to do it every time a rights owner came after us. In the new version .... U.S. based companies were exempted ... including us. so it was an improvement. that said, our international friends are still subject to such potential harassment.

[18:49:12] <RoanKattouw> geoffreybrigham: To clarify, do the amendments mean that we would not be exposed to nasty or new avenues of harrassment?
[18:49:30] <RoanKattouw> (I know that's a selfish POV and international sites are still screwed -- but focusing on the impact on us now)
[18:49:51] <geoffreybrigham> rights owners from abroad can seek action under SOPA @RoanKattouw. Under Section 103, yes. But under Section 102, we can still be obliged to take down so-called "foreign infringing sites"
[18:51:03] <RoanKattouw> Oh, we'd have to remove links to foreign sites?
[18:51:06] <apergos> do we get handed a list of those (so'called infringing sites) or how does that work anyways?
[18:51:19] <geoffreybrigham> Right RoanKattouw ... and here is the catch. we could be linking to non-infringing material. But we could still be forced to take down the link because a rights owner had complaints about other infringing material on the site or i should say "claimed" infringing material. the solution of SOPA is to take down the whole site ... not address more surgically the infringing material.

WEBLINKS/anti-circumvention provisions?

[18:39:47] <gmaxwell> geoffreybrigham: I was surprised to not see the anti-circumvention provisions get more attention in your analyis. En Wikipedia has hunreds (if not thousands?) of citations to wikileaks documents. If WLs got SOPAed, we'd surely fix the URLs to new IPs/domains thereby perhaps making us afoul of the anti-circumvention.
[18:40:31] <geoffreybrigham> I did link to articles that addressed the anti-circumvention provision, namely the EFF piece. it was one of my bullet points that talked about human rights groups. But you are right it deserves empahsis.

[18:59:53] <apergos> can we have an article about The Pirate Bay? can we include a link to it (as we would for any notable site)?
[19:01:05] <geoffreybrigham> So under SOPA, probably not. Exactly my point. We can link to Pirate Bay today as long as the link is not to infringing material. But SOPA targets Pirate Bay. If we get a court order, we have to take down that totally legitimate link.

SOPA ENFORCEMENT?

[18:52:37] <apergos> do we get notified about every claim via court order? is there some master list? how does any of it work?
[18:53:22] <Philippe> apergos: Enforcement is still undetermined at this point, I understand, because the bill isn't through with markup.
[18:53:48] <sgardner> apergos: Part of the problem is that nobody knows how it would work. It'd be a new law, and it would need to be interpreted and fought over and so forth. A major concern for me is that the Wikimedia Foundation is tiny: we do not have an army of lawyers and administrators to handle something like SOPA, the way richer for-profit sites do.
[18:53:56] <geoffreybrigham> So we would be served from a court order. multiple right owners in multiple districts in the U.s. would seek to get orders
[18:54:45] <Nemo_bis> oh, court order; so it's still some orders of magnitude better than the DDL Intercettazioni
[18:55:40] <geoffreybrigham> Yeah ... Nemo_bis ... there is this whole other part of SOPA that could technically "break" the Internet.
[18:55:41] <apergos> have people been digging up all the bizarre things people have done with dmca claims to point out just how the new law will certainly be abused?
[18:55:54] <geoffreybrigham> I linked to some articles on that, and I think we will be posting other articles.

MOVING TO ICELAND?

[18:41:00] <Sargoth> is there a "plan b" for the foundation, for instance to move to canada, if wikipedia is shut down under sopa?
[18:41:50] <sgardner> Hi Sargoth. Unfortunately, the conditions that allow Wikipedia to operate really don't exist outside the United States. Canada has for example hate speech laws that would probably constrain us.
[18:41:51] <Theo10011> sgardner, the law in its current incarnation is still a US legislation.
[18:42:54] <RoanKattouw> Theo10011: Yup, but .com, .org and .net are all under US jurisdiction
[18:43:10] <Seddon> Sargoth: In all likelihood the WMF would have to move to places like Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland etc.
[18:43:27] <StevenW> Seriously though, even if we moved, SOPA would still maybe kill the free Web.
[18:43:50] <Theo10011> Let's just move to Iceland. :P
[18:43:51] <sgardner> Yeah. But I think it's important for people to understand that the reason this issue matters is because our servers are in the United States. So it's not US-centric to care about this bill. This bill would affect all the projects, all the language versions.
[18:43:52] <geoffreybrigham> Ironically, we would become a foreign site
[18:43:56] <RoanKattouw> Right. And be even more screwed under SOPA
[18:44:15] <gmaxwell> FWIW, absent SOPA US laws are very well suited to what we do, perhaps uniquely well suited, and we have a lot of powerful allies in the US. Those are not easy alternatives.
[18:44:16] <geoffreybrigham> People could harass us under both Section 102 and 103.
[18:44:48] <Theo10011> Is it legally smart to have operational redundancies in 2 or more countries?
[18:45:17] <sgardner> Theo, do you mean: would it be good to have operations in two or more countries?
[18:45:23] <sgardner> Not really: it creates more exposure for us, not less.
[18:45:35] <Theo10011> sgardner, or only servers?
[18:45:41] <geoffreybrigham> Right ... U.S. law is extremely positive on free expression and liability protection against hosting companies.
[18:45:46] <sgardner> Same thing -- more exposure.
[18:46:13] <geoffreybrigham> Right ... we would have to subject ourselves to different legal regimes.

WHAT DO WE DO NEXT? WIKIPEDIANS? WMF?

[18:58:30] <sgardner> So, there was some kind of proposal to do a shutdown last night, right? But I think it was felt that there wasn't time to have a proper discussion. I am assuming that given consensus wasn't achieved in time to do something today, to synch up with the mark-up, that people will start talking about i) what is the right form of protest to stage and ii) when is the right time to stage it. So I am wondering -- is there anything we can tell you here, or find out for you outside of this chat, that would help people make informed decisions? (I am assuming you're wanting to form a position, influence the discussions when they happen on-wiki, etc.)
** Transcriber's note: The propose that sgardner is referring to may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&oldid=465937488#Turn_Wikipedia_off_RfC **
[19:03:54] <bodnotbod> @sgardner The only thing I can think of as helpful to me at the moment is that we have a solid place we can stay updated (because as Geoff says, this is a moving target). I will monitor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative unless informed there's a better place to stay in touch with all this.
[19:05:32] <sgardner> Bodnotbod: yeah. I think the Wikimedia Foundation can use that page as a place to put information for people. I am assuming it won't be the place where community discussion happens -- because there is no RfC there. But we will use it to put updates, whatever information we get about other sites' plans, and so forth. Pete: I don't think the Board has plans to do anything. I think it's up to the community how to handle this. If the community wants something from the Wikimedia Foundation, it should just ask.
[19:06:34] <peteforsyth> There are cases where carefully timed action is very hard to accomplish by broad consensus
[19:06:40] <sgardner> Yeah, but I don't think people should wait for the Board. I think they should make their own decisions through normal community process. I hear you though, on slowness.

[19:08:23] <sgardner> I want to talk for one minute about Wikimedia Foundation support for any action. I was kicking around some ideas yesterday with Zack, Jay, Geoff and Kat, about what might happen here. And what kind of support the community might need or want. So as you know, Zack used to work for MoveOn.org, so he has lots of experience with this kind of thing. He is on holiday. But he said that if people are discussing an action somewhere, he would be happy to join in, and advise from the perspective of someone who used to do that kind of thing for a living. Not steering or deciding anything, but just advising. Also, the Wikimedia Foundation has a fundraising infrastructure. Those folks are working crazy hours right now on the fundraising. But if the community wanted help with banner design or text, or anything like that, I am sure we would be able to free up some resources for that. And there are also lots of volunteers who've been involved with the fundraising, and presumably some of them might also be willing to help. I am saying this because I want people to know that the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to give counsel, advice, support of various kinds, if we are asked for it. Taht's all :-)
[19:12:27] <bodnotbod> @sgardner I'm certainly in favour of Foundation staff being fully involved in the community discussion. I feel a presence is needed that is familiar with non-profit law and to let community know of implications of certain decisions they may be leaning towards.
[19:13:37] <sgardner> Yeah, Bodnotbod, and we are happy to participate there. I do really want people to understand that we are in a support tole, not leading anything. I think that if community members feel like the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to control what happens, that could cause backlash and upset. We really do just want to support you.
[19:13:39] <kim__> sgardner, do you have contacts with google, MS, internet archive, reddit, other tech organizations (commercial or non?) ... for the purposes of organizing this protest?
[19:14:08] <sgardner> Kim, yes. We're talking to all those folks on a daily basis, and we'll post what we're hearing about their plans (to the extent they're comfortable with it) on the SOPA page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative

You can read the whole conversation here, I selected and rearranged the most important points IMHO. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the key was [18:47:20] <geoffreybrigham> In the old version, rights owners could harass us by calling us an infringing site. they could serve notice on our payment processors for fundraising to stop revenues. we would respond, take them to court, but it would consume time and resources. and we would have to do it every time a rights owner came after us. In the new version .... U.S. based companies were exempted ... including us. so it was an improvement. that said, our international friends are still subject to such potential harassment.

JMO.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I find most critical: "<geoffreybrigham> Right RoanKattouw ... and here is the catch. we could be linking to non-infringing material. But we could still be forced to take down the link because a rights owner had complaints about other infringing material on the site or i should say "claimed" infringing material. the solution of SOPA is to take down the whole site ... not address more surgically the infringing material." That's still forced censorship of non-infringing material, and that is not at all acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia is legally a charity - are such political acts allowed.

Don't charities lose their tax free exemption in USA for political advocacy? Could a blackout be seen as some form of in-kind contribution in any way for doing this? Herp Derp (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The total prohibition only applies to contributions to specific candidates and parties; lobbying is only prohibited if they constitute a substantial or main part of the activities, defined as urging people to vote a certain way; other actions are not lobbying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tremendous task??

"Wikimedia would be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called “foreign infringing sites,” and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors’ money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task."

So the harm the new version of SOPA can inflict on Wikipedia is that we will have a new bot cleaning links? That's tremendous.--Euyyn (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.166.49 (talk)