On 18 Jan 2012, at 21:37, Henning Thielemann wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Nathan Collins wrote:

...

- Portland is a very popular US city, known for beer, bikes, music, and street food:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Oregon (wikipedia is blacked out today)

Maybe it is only a JavaScript trick. In Firefox (with JavaScript) I see the complete a page before it is overwritten by the protest page. In Konqueror of KDE 3 (with and without JavaScript) I can read the Wiki pages without problems. Edit however is really disabled. Sometimes I am glad to have the old technology available. :-)

Well, I must admit, they succeeded in making me install AdBlock - just to block this banner (it really is a JavaScript trick).

Just add ?banner=none to the url if you really have to read the page On 18 Jan 2012, at 17:37, Henning Thielemann wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Nathan Collins wrote:

...

- Portland is a very popular US city, known for beer, bikes, music, and street food:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Oregon (wikipedia is blacked out today)

Maybe it is only a JavaScript trick. In Firefox (with JavaScript) I see the complete a page before it is overwritten by the protest page. In Konqueror of KDE 3 (with and without JavaScript) I can read the Wiki pages without problems. Edit however is really disabled. Sometimes I am glad to have the old technology available. :-)

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Butterfield Tel: +353-1-896-2517 Fax: +353-1-677-2204 Lero@TCD, Head of Foundations & Methods Research Group Director of Teaching and Learning - Undergraduate, School of Computer Science and Statistics, Room G.39, O'Reilly Institute, Trinity College, University of Dublin http://www.scss.tcd.ie/Andrew.Butterfield/ --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andrew Butterfield wrote:

Just add ?banner=none to the url if you really have to read the page

Maybe the intention was to demonstrate that censorship (in this case self-censorship) is mostly a problem for average users but not for advanced users.

Not to mention ebay, craigslist, etc.. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111005/10082416208/monster-cable-claims-e... when there is no burden of proof for someone to take down a site then things get very complicated. for instance this package could be enough to get all of hackage taken down since astrolabe decided they own timezone data[1]. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/timezone-olson-0.1.2 in fact, SOPA and PIPA would make hackage pretty impossible to legally host. Unless the hackage maintainers want to do exhaustive patent and copyright searches on all uploaded code before they allow it to be posted. [1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/11532316235/astrolabe-claims-it-ho... John On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote:

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 13:11, Henning Thielemann wrote:

...

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andrew Butterfield wrote:

...

Just add ?banner=none to the url if you really have to read the page

Maybe the intention was to demonstrate that censorship (in this case self-censorship) is mostly a problem for average users but not for advanced users.

There isn't going to be a disable-javascript or ?banner hack when anyone anywhere can force a website to be redirected to some DOJ page without providing any proof.  (Yes, really.)

-- brandon s allbery                                      allbery.b@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available)     (412) 475-9364 vm/sms

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 15:20, Hans Aberg wrote:

There is the Beastie Boys case, where the judge decided copyright protects what is creatively unique.

But such judgments are rare, sadly. And for every Beastie Boys case there's at least one The Verve case. -- brandon s allbery allbery.b@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms

And such a thing can take months or years for the courts to figure out, and unless your free site has a lawyer to fight for your side, under SOPA/PIPA you can be down the entire time with little recourse. For anyone hosting content lke hackage, github, etc. when you have thousands of packages, someone somewhere is going to be upset by something and will be able to take the site down. _regardless of the merit of their case_ the site will go down as they figure it out. Not only that, they would be able to take the site down if it contains a link to an objectionable site. for instance, if one of the homepage fields in some cabal file somewhere pointed to a site that someone took offense too on it. we would not only be obligated to patrol the code uploaded, but the targets of any urls within said code/description... and retroactively remove stuff if said links change to contain objectional material. (for a very vauge definition of objectionable). it is a really messed up law. John On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:

On 18 Jan 2012, at 23:11, Brandon Allbery wrote:

...

...

There is the Beastie Boys case, where the judge decided copyright protects what is creatively unique.

But such judgments are rare, sadly.  And for every Beastie Boys case there's at least one The Verve case.

I did not know that. But it was a UK case, wasn't it? - UK copyright laws are a lot more tight.

Hans

However the fallout is likely to destroy both open source and resale on the internet. For instance, the existence of this is enough to get hackage a takedown under SOPA. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/conjure now, you might say we can just move hackage out of the US, but then any site that _links_ to hackage from within the US will then be subject to takedown from within the US, and any US based search engine would be unable to index hackage or return results to it, until hackage hired a lawyer to prove they don't fascilitate piracy. And I am not even sure they would win, providing a bittorrent client is fascilitting piracy because it can be used as a piratebay client. supporting piracy is transitive under SOPA. think freshmeat.net, slashdot.org, github, basically any site that links to user content can be shut down. And haskell.org won't be able to link to it without also falling prey to SOPA. it's transitive. Not only that, but the proponents are not just hollywood, it is anyone that feels they will have an advantage with the ability to bully internet sites. For instance, monster cable is a huge supporter and they have a history of suing any site that posts bad reviews of their products or anyone that uses the words 'monster' or 'cable'. under SOPA they could just get the sites they want shut down until they capitulate. Silicon Valley need not fear this sort of thing too much as they can bite back with lawyers of their own, but independent sites will find themselves shut off or delisted and sites linking to them shut down. John On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:

Actually, it is a battle between the Hollywood and Silicon Valley industries.

Hans

On 19 Jan 2012, at 00:11, John Meacham wrote:

...

And such a thing can take months or years for the courts to figure out, and unless your free site has a lawyer to fight for your side, under SOPA/PIPA you can be down the entire time with little recourse. For anyone hosting content lke hackage, github, etc. when you have thousands of packages, someone somewhere is going to be upset by something and will be able to take the site down. _regardless of the merit of their case_ the site will go down as they figure it out. Not only that, they would be able to take the site down if it contains a link to an objectionable site. for instance, if one of the homepage fields in some cabal file  somewhere pointed to a site that someone took offense too on it. we would not only be obligated to patrol the code uploaded, but the targets of any urls within said code/description... and retroactively remove stuff if said links change to contain objectional material. (for a very vauge definition of objectionable). it is a really messed up law.

   John

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:

...

On 18 Jan 2012, at 23:11, Brandon Allbery wrote:

...

...

There is the Beastie Boys case, where the judge decided copyright protects what is creatively unique.

But such judgments are rare, sadly.  And for every Beastie Boys case there's at least one The Verve case.

I did not know that. But it was a UK case, wasn't it? - UK copyright laws are a lot more tight.

Hans

Aside from being a horrible oversimplification of the matter (because it's *never* that simple - Wikipedia is not in this movement for commercial interest or the side of SV/HW, but because it opposes the censoring of the internet; neither are people like Dan Kaminsky, who are also opposing from the point of the large-scale security ramifications due to the subversion of DNS' universal nature,) and the grounds at stake extending far beyond either SV or Hollywood [1] - I don't really think boiling it down to 2 contenders is terribly important: It passes, and we lose. Or we'll end up having to fight an even tougher battle. "This bill cannot be fixed; it must be killed." - The EFF On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Hans Aberg wrote:

Actually, it is a battle between the Hollywood and Silicon Valley industries.

Hans

[1] It will cause substantial damage to large number of existing jobs in plenty of places as a result of massive amounts of litigation, it will stunt investment in anything which could potentially suffer from such litigation, it sets horrific precedents, goes beyond just 'piracy' with the Monster case as John pointed out, and could result in possible follow up laws in similar countries. -- Regards, Austin

My understanding is that blocking/redirection is to be done at the DNS level. In which case, there *is* a "?banner" hack of sorts - get the IP by some other means. Which is not to say we should be significantly less concerned. On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote:

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 13:11, Henning Thielemann wrote:

...

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andrew Butterfield wrote:

...

Just add ?banner=none to the url if you really have to read the page

Maybe the intention was to demonstrate that censorship (in this case self-censorship) is mostly a problem for average users but not for advanced users.

There isn't going to be a disable-javascript or ?banner hack when anyone anywhere can force a website to be redirected to some DOJ page without providing any proof.  (Yes, really.)

-- brandon s allbery                                      allbery.b@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available)     (412) 475-9364 vm/sms

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Granted, but nothing a technical user can't handle, which was the earlier question. On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 17:15, David Thomas wrote:

...

My understanding is that blocking/redirection is to be done at the DNS level.  In which case, there *is* a "?banner" hack of sorts - get the IP by some other means.

Sadly name-based virtual hosts require a bit more work than that...

-- brandon s allbery                                      allbery.b@gmail.com wandering unix systems administrator (available)     (412) 475-9364 vm/sms