Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League:

Let's hear what you think about the proposal.

Posted by: Fusion

Is this an organisation of extreme Freikultur enthusiasts? Or is it a front for those who make much money from others' work and wish not to lose their golden goose?

Posted by: FightingMac

Can someone help me refine an argument (or point my error) where I feel I'm on uncertain ground because geekery challenges me.

It seems to me there's a fundamental inconsistency in Wikipedia blocking proxy servers and VPN addresses (as it does, including the enire TOR network), while at the same Jimmy Wales is supporting the cause of Richard O'Dwyer whose site TVShack depends on users being able to use proxy servers or VPN addresses to avoid sanctions from their IPS, or even to access TVShack in the first place. Is that indeed so, or am I being wrongheaded here?

And can someone hazard for me please a reliable guess at what Jimmy Wales' position would be about downloading a film from Usenet someone else has uploaded onto Usenet. As I understand the only possibly illegal action here was to upload the film in the first place (thus making it available to all). Downloading it is arguably not illegal, so I have seen it claimed, nor is it illegal for a site to collect and publish NZB files allowing you to download these files, since they are not providing the content.

Is all that a defensible position? Is this what Jimmy Wales would claim? And crucially, if he claims it's legal to publish these NZBs and use them to download films for free, is he also then saying that it is morally acceptable to do so, that this is the issue he is really campaigning on.

It seems to me that his defense of Richard O'Dwyer is necessarily predicated on these positions

Posted by: Selina

I was gonna say, doesn't EFF make it obsolete? Then I read "Who has joined so far? WordPress, Imgur, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Fark, Reddit, Craig Newmark's CraigConnects, Cheezburger Family Network, OpenCongress/PPF, TechDirt, Patrick Ruffini, Elizabeth Stark, Marvin Ammori, Doll Divine, Songmeanings, ROFLCON, Identi.ca, Electronic Consumers Association, Fight for the Future, Hypemachine, Boing Boing"
Hmm cool.

Not sure if Wikipedia's example is good people to be giving advuce though, argh! Their approach to "freedom" is rather like Jimmy's Rand-roid Libertarianism, 'freedom' for those with the most money to influence as they wish as long as they don't admit it.






(also.... YES haha! http://internetdefenseleague.org/)

Posted by: Ottava

They are a weird political group and will probably amount to weirdness.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League&diff=3870347&oldid=3869763

Holmes Wilson from "Fight for the Future" has provided his or her viewpoint and response.

Posted by: Selina

That sounds kind of similar to how some try to dismiss WR though. Is this because they oppose the Republican party stances?

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

The discussion has been closed:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League&diff=3874864&oldid=3874759

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Internet_Defense_League&diff=3871767&oldid=3871727

The WMF won't be joining the Internet Defense League.

Posted by: Mr.Treason II

Yup... the IDF is an unelected unaccountable organization with a history of corruption, fraud and dirty e-warfare.