Interviews with Digital Media Thought Leaders

Explaining the Wikipedia Blackout

Podcast Audio | Posted by Phil Leigh on January 19, 2012

Standard Podcast [18:22m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

“Gee, Granddad (or Granny), tells us again about the day the Wikipedia went dark!”

Today’s 18-minute audio interview is with Jim Burger who is a copyright attorney with Dow, Lohnes in Washington, D. C. He’s specialized in copyright law for thirty years and prior to Dow, Lohnes was on the legal staff at Apple.

Wikipedia turned out the lights yesterday to protest two bills in Congress. Proponents claim the bills need to be enacted in order to protect movies, recorded music, and other “intellectual property” from piracy. Opponents assert enactment of the bills will, (a) censor the Internet, (b) obstruct innovation, and (3) place expensive burdens on innocent third parties.

To download 18-minute audio interview to iPod, iPhone, or iPad, click here.

The House Bill is termed the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The Senate Bill is called the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). Most Internet-centric organizations object to the bills, but Wikipedia is the paragon for three reasons. 1. Wikipedia is hosted by a non-profit organization which would likely incur considerable expense even trying to comply with provisions in the bills and risk enormous liability for non-compliance.

2. Compliance would be an almost impossible task for the 1,800 Wikipedia editors who are unpaid volunteers.

3. Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website on the Internet. Millions of people contribute content and tens of millions use it daily.

Wikipedia has at least two legitimate complaints.

First, the bills enable the Justice Department to request that a Judge order all domestically hosted websites to block access to overseas websites that Justice concludes are involved in Internet piracy. If the overseas site is a small business it will not have the money to represent itself at the hearing, thereby making it easy for the Judge to agree with the Justice Department even if targeted websites are legitimate.

Since Wikipedia has millions of people contributing content - including website links - it is almost certain some of the alleged infringers will have links on some Wikipedia articles. Such links may be disguised, like this:

http://tiny.cc/10k5r

It’s obvious that the above url has no evident relation to the actual domain, but the bills would require Wikipedia to investigate every such arcane link.

Moreover, Wikipedia is required to bear the expense of investigating such links, whereas the motion picture and record label industries offload such costs to the Justice Department – meaning you and me as taxpayers.

Given the enormous Federal budget deficits it’s surprising that so many Congressmen and Senators believe the taxpayer should bear the expense of prosecuting infringement claims for Hollywood, drug companies, and record labels while simultaneously requiring innocent third parties like Wikipedia to pay for the onerous compliance.

A second legitimate complaint is that the bills essentially mandate censorship of the Internet. Once there is a precedent for censorship it seems likely other special interests will seek censorship as well. After such a trend starts there’s no telling where it will end.