Talk:Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act

TG Daily?

Never heard of it. Leaving as it looks ok on a superficial scan, and for all I know it's famous in Ohio or something. But we should replace this soon with a more authoritative source and a deeper dive into the detail. Elinruby (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly it doesn't seem famous, but it seems to come up a lot when I search for news topics. And admittedly I grasped at it a bit too eagerly, because my personal reaction is that it is very unusual to "Wikify" the writing of legislation. But I hate not to emphasize that curious detail. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't have to be famous, but I'd be happier knowing what it *is*. But what I am saying is that if this was the only source you saw for the wikifying the legislation detail, it doesn't look *bad* but there are probably more and better sources out there at this point, as more people write up the story. Is it a newspaper somewhere do you know? I remember looking at About Us and not being able to tell. The wiki for the legislation *is* notable. Absolutely. I corrected a typo in it earlier :) it was awesome. If you have read news there before what do you think of it? Mainstream centrist sort of publication? Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, this guy is an acknowledged expert:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57339110-281/sopa-foes-ready-alternative-plan-no-web-blocking/

Let's use both, I think. Going to go take another look at the TG site too. Elinruby (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh hey, it's already there ;) TG looks like an Ars Technica wannabe. I am ok with it, but someone may call it a website and ask if they qualify as experts. We'll worry about it when it happens. Gonna start editing now. Elinruby (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't think we should mirror that table

a) doesn't follow capitalization format b) language is a bit simplistic. "protects artists?" None of them to real well at that afaik. c) have you looked at licensing/copyright? d) it's coming from a site that may be officially run by the authors of the bill, but it's still a site that advocates for its passage.

Leaving it alone temporarily while I go see what else is out there. I take it they *just* released the language? Elinruby (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm admittedly not quite sure how best to "quote" a table, but as the site puts this forward very prominently, it seemed like it deserved to be quoted. I did not mean for the table to be interpreted as a nonpartisan, Wikipedia statement but as a quote. Can you think of a way to make that clearer? Wnt (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Treat it as an image? Still leaves you with license questions. I think there are better analyses out there. Got distracted by stuff in the RfC earlier then had to drive somewhere. Looking now. Elinruby (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I wracked it through some more advanced Wiki/HTML syntax. I don't want to go to an image because quotes are no big deal but Fair Use images will be deleted, it's only a question of how long before it happens. (Shouldn't be that way, but I know better than to hope it won't be) Wnt (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I gotta go play taxi again. I'll be back later. Take a look at TechDirt meanwhile, if you want. He usually gets dismissed as a blog but his sources are great. Elinruby (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty un-encyclopedic table IMO. I would suggest rewording it and making it into a few paragraphs on differences and similarities. As it stands, it reads quite un-NPOV. – Ilyanep (Talk) 05:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, on the third attempt I finally managed to prosify the table in a way that doesn't seem terribly awkward. Hopefully this will go over better. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lobbying stats

I almost added a sentence about the two sides: "According to the Center for Responsive Politics both sides have spent approximately $90 million on lobbying efforts.^{Julia Boorstin (2011-12-08). "Media Money:Anti-Piracy Bill Battle: Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley". CNBC.}". However, on searching, it sounds like the RIAA (not the movie industry) spent $90 million over 10 years, $17 million last year [1] and Google spent $5.2 million last year [2]. I'd almost add it anyway in a straight V-not-T exercise, except the source doesn't say whether $90 million is spent on SOPA, piracy in general, etc., nor does it say per year, decade, etc. Does anyone recognize the actual citation from the CRP so I can get to the bottom of this? Wnt (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B02&year=a

there's currently a post on the RS noticeboard about them. I think they qualify but not everyone there did. Note - if you look in the history of the SOPA article very similar numbers sourced to Politico got deleted. Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, I like that link... the problem is, it's apparent that there is no one report being cited, but a database that I could search many ways. Just because $90 million is lobbied on "TV/movies/music" doesn't tell me it's all being spent on piracy, let alone SOPA. I might stray too far into "original synthesis" connecting such statistics to this issue... hopefully some slightly clearer variant of the statement will turn up as the bill is covered more in the news. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

well, the link takes you to a reproducible page, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect federal records to show what the lobbying is *for*. But ya, the question has been asked. Apparently they do review blog posts, but we know this because somebody emailed them rathe than from an About US page. Not sure how policy handles that. Maybe see if you can gather a consensus on the RS board? let me see what I can find meanwhile. Since you're actively working this too I may just toss links in a section here as I find them, rather than trying to write at the same time. And that way you can use them too, or tell me if you think we shouldn't. Elinruby (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

news sources for discussion

These look pretty good:

• http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/3324169/lawmakers-release-alternative-proposal-stop-online-piracy-act/
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57339611-38/lawmakers-unveil-sensible-alternative-to-sopa/?tag=content;siu-container

• news analysis, author has been covering copyright for some time and gets quoted by other journalists a lot.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opponent-of-antipiracy-bills-signs-on-to-a-counterproposal/

• Wyden support

• A bit consumer-oriented, but in its area of expertise:

http://www.extremetech.com/internet/108497-bipartisan-group-offers-sane-alternative-to-sopa-guess-what-hollywood-thinks

Elinruby (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times article was a good find, thanks. The ExtremeTech article has a quote I find gratifying: "The MPAA dislikes OPEN because it doesn’t give the organization the extra-judicial authority to steamroll any site it pleases, and unilaterally destroy its access to income, search traffic, and advertising without the need for an investigation. Those are precisely the reasons why SOPA in its current form is unpalatable—and there’s precious little that can be done to fix it." But I feel odd about featuring a source that seems obscure in such a prominent way, alas. But I think I did use it for some basic information. Wnt (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

They aren't really obscure -- just primarily a product review site. They are in this, I think, because the law may affect some Mp3 and dvd players. So it's not that they are some guy in his pajamas, more that they don't usually cover policy very much. But they do know their tech. Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

As the largest advertisers on the web, Google and Facebook have motivation to protect their patch: by lobbying for additional legal demands on advertisers. They are in a good place to deal with the consequences, with smaller advertisers (and new smaller companies) losing out as they have to expend the huge resources needed to act as internet police.

I believe this will have consequences for the neutrality of this article, as it develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.180.248 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124052154/https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/Petitions to https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)