I agree that Wikipedia's position is controversial, but the mitigating factors in this case are:

- The site is nothing but 'user created content' so these bills are very specific to things just like Wikipedia.

- It's a non-profit org that can do things like this - Google and others who would also be heavily impacted can not shut down as part of their fiscal responsibility to their shareholders. They can put up banners and funny graphics, but they have to keep running. Wikipedia is large but independent from profit/shareholders, so it's uniquely placed in the heavily traffic'd sites list to be able to do this.

- Their charter describes actions from 'editor voting', i.e. Wikipedia voted for this, so can do it.

This isn't a 'Save the Whales/AK-47' political-angle thing here, it's something that if went ahead like it was intended to originally would likely mean Wikipedia would have to be changed beyond recognition. There is no point protesting about something after a bill is passed, but before.

While I agree an web encyclopedia should always try to remain apolitical, you can appreciate their right to fight to exist in this case.

You never know, this might prove that democracy works ok in the end, but only with people that care taking action. This issue seems to be more of people not knowing what the bill actually proposed rather than objecting to its premise (in fact, a case can be made for those that wrote it not really knowing what it really proposed )

Silicon Valley is naturally opposed to this, since Internet based companies stand the most to lose. They host or link to content that they don't own the rights to. Some of these big companies, I won't name names, have really skated on thin ice in the past, one of them for example has been hiring contract workers to scan the collections of university libraries to put online, even if the copyrights hadn't expired yet. The idea was, get this done quick as possible now, then worry about the lawsuits and court injunctions when they come later. Some of them aren't completely in it for pure, uninterested reasons as much they let on, i.e., sharing knowledge, their business model depends on it.

Wikipedia's argument that it doesn't gain anything financially is a red herring, its reason for being could be at risk, that's the main point. I don't gain anything financially to go to my favorite park, still, I don't want it necessarily closed down and sold to developers or advertisers either, since I can't play sports or take dates to the park anymore. I have hobbies and interests that I engage in that have nothing to do with any financial reward, that in itself isn't the point.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything or deny everything on one side or the other, it's not totally without merit the idea that it is a battle between Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood.

If SOPA goes through wikipedia will be gone. So even though they are inconveniencing many people with the blackout I hope those people understand that without getting this message out there wikipedia will be gone. As will many other great sites who can not afford to triple check every piece of information. (SimHQ included)

I work in Silicon Valley- and profits are the motives either way. There's no way you can remove that conclusion. The business depends on keeping information freely as open as possible- at least to an extent. They aren't providing this service in and of itself because they want to share it with you. Bet your bottom dollar they defend their own intellectual property vigorously, file their own lawsuits and sue each other for infringement.

so let me get this right,

Lets say I own a website whos domain is located in England etc, I post a picture of SimHQ, fearless frog visits my website and is horrified to see that I have broken some IP laws, contacts the domain and quotes SOPA/PIPA violation etc, and my website would get taken down?

If so that stinks, even more so because its a US law that is effecting a non US Citizen in a non US country, and my UK domain would have to comply with a US law?

That is seriously wrong.

SimHQ is silicon valley? Doug - go tell that Zuckerburg kid to keep my Facebook account closed please!

Kidding aside, I think you are right that the bills issues are really about Digital Rights Management and how to protect media so that they get fairly paid in an age that is struggling to keep up.

My main objection is really with the mechanisms proposed in the bill rather than its underlying premise or goal. Hollywood can propose all sorts of things, good luck to them, but let's not start munching on the things that made the Internet special (and something that US Citizens should be enormously proud and protective of btw). I work in the 'content creation' business and get hurt by piracy, but this bill is not going to help, but quite the opposite.

Linking to things between sites and a hierarchical distributed naming system like DNS are not the right mechanisms to go after for media/IP disputes. There are other better ways rather than jiggling the fundamentals of the Internet to see what happens. The bills are just plain bad, and will hopefully be updated soon enough.

Not exactly. The infringing website could/would be blocked from US access via the DNS servers. As I understand, this only applies to US based DNS servers. This is why the technical weaknesses of law can be so easily sidestepped, just by changing your router's DNS to a server outside the US, or simply by typing the direct IP address of the desired website.

Can't recall the source on that now, I think it was a technical paper I read through the EFF.

Patents can be registered and recognized by foreign entities. So for example, Sweden has a lot of patents registered and recognized in the United States. That's why it baffles me if the Swedes take a sympathetic view towards its home grown 'Pirate Party.' It's not just Hollywood, it's them as well. Some Asian countries on the other hand have the situation where they haven't really developed in this area- hence the vast bootleg market.

Your website wouldn't be removed in the UK but would be blocked by any US-based DNS system - I'd click on your link and my ISP's DNS was say 'not found', and any site that linked to it in the US (say SimHQ) would be compelled to remove the post, i.e. the obligation is now put on SimHQ rather than the pirate.

Ironically this is how China also enforces political censorship (DNS blocking, link examination, the 'Great Firewall of China'), just in-case we have any illusions of how steep this slippery slope could end up being.

The bills may very well be technically flawed, however, it's not to say the truth simply comes down on one side. Like a lot of other things in life, for example, the world's massive borrowing problem, people have simply gotten used to having everything for free and started getting the idea that it should always be that way. Sooner or later the time to pay would have come up.