Wikipedia:SOPA

Stop Online Piracy Act，disingkat SOPA adalah sebuah rancangan undang-undang yang dikemukakan di Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Amerika Serikat pada 26 Oktober 2011. Rancangan undang-undang ini dianggap mengancam kebebasan informasi di Internet. Untuk memprotes "RUU Antipembajakan Daring" yang kontroversial tersebut, Wikipedia bahasa Inggris pada Rabu, jam 00.00 Waktu Standar Timur (UTC-5) selama 24 jam akan dipadamkan (ditutupi dengan tampilan layar hitam), yang disertai panduan menuju halaman informasi yang relevan, namun pengguna masih bisa mengakses Wikipedia bahasa Inggris menggunakan peranti mobil. Sebagian besar pengguna, termasuk administrator tidak bisa menyunting situs tersebut.

Sebelum ini, Wikipedia bahasa Italia pada bulan Oktober 2011 juga melakukan hal yang sama untuk memprotes kebebasan internet di Italia, dan merupakan preseden dari tindakan Wikipedia bahasa Inggris ini.

Kepada: Para Pembaca dan Komunitas Wikipedia bahasa Inggris
Dari: Sue Gardner, Direktur Eksekutif Wikimedia Foundation
Tanggal: 16 Januari 2012

Hari ini, komunitas Wikipedia mengumumkan keputusannya untuk memadamkan Wikipedia bahasa Inggris selama 24 jam, di seluruh dunia, dimulai pada Rabu, 18 Januari 2012 pukul 05.00 UTC (Anda dapat membaca pernyataan dari Wikimedia Foundation di sini). Pemadaman ini adalah suatu protes terhadap usulan undang-undang di Amerika Serikat—yaitu Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) dari Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Amerika Serikat, dan juga PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) dari Senat Amerika Serikat—yang jika disahkan akan benar-benar merugikan Internet yang bebas dan terbuka, termasuk Wikipedia.

Ini akan menjadi protes publik yang pertama kali bagi Wikipedia bahasa Inggris, dan hal ini bukanlah keputusan yang dibuat dengan sembarangan. Berikut ini adalah penjelasan dari tiga pengurus Wikipedia, yang secara formal memfasilitasi pembicaraan komunitas. Pada pernyataan publik yang ditandatangani oleh User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst tertulis,

Komunitas Wikipedia bahasa Inggris berpendapat bahwa kedua rancangan undang-undang, jika disahkan, akan menghancurkan web yang bebas dan terbuka.

Selama 72 jam yang lalu, lebih dari 1800 Wikipediawan ikut bersama-sama membicarakan mengenai usulan tindakan yang perlu diambil oleh komunitas dalam rangka menentang SOPA dan PIPA. Sejauh ini, pembicaraan ini, berdasarkan jumlah keikutsertaannya, merupakan pembicaraan komunitas yang terbesar yang pernah terjadi di dalam Wikipedia. Hal ini menunjukkan tingkat keprihatinan yang para Wikipediawan rasakan terhadap usulan undang-undang ini. Sebagian besar para partisipan mendukung tindakan komunitas untuk mendorong aksi publik yang lebih besar dalam menanggapi kedua rancangan undang-undang ini. Dari banyak usulan yang telah ditimbang oleh Wikipediawan, diputuskan hasilnya adalah “pemadaman” Wikipedia bahasa Inggris, bersama-sama dengan pemadaman serupa pada situs web lain dalam menentang SOPA dan PIPA, yang menerima dukungan yang terbanyak.

Setelah mengulas pembicaraan ini, para pengurus yang mengakhiri pembicaraan menyatakan dukungan luas terhadap tindakan dari para Wikipediawan di seluruh dunia, tidak hanya dari dalam Amerika Serikat. Keberatan yang utama terhadap pemadaman global ini datang dari mereka yang berpendapat bahwa pemadaman ini seharusnya dibatasi untuk pembaca dari Amerika Serikat saja, sedangkan bagian dunia lainnya hanya ditampilkan panji pemberitahuan yang sederhana. Kami juga mendapati bahwa 55% dari mereka yang mendukung pemadaman lebih setuju terhadap pemadaman yang bersifat global, karena banyak juga yang menunjukkan kekhawatirannya terhadap undang-undang sejenis yang ada di negara lain.

Dalam membuat keputusan ini, Wikipediawan akan dikritik karena secara terang-terangan meninggalkan pandangan netral dan beralih ikut bertindak terhadap isu politik. Hal ini merupakan permasalahan yang nyata dan sah. Kami ingin agar masyarakat mempercayai Wikipedia, tidak mencemaskan bahwa Wikipedia mencoba mempropaganda mereka.

Walaupun artikel dalam Wikipedia bersifat netral, keberadaannya tidaklah demikian. Kat Walsh, anggota dewan Wikimedia Foundation, baru-baru ini menulis pada salah satu milis kami sebagai berikut,

Kami bergantung kepada prasarana hukum yang memungkinkan Wikipedia dapat terus beroperasi. Dan kami juga bergantung pada prasarana hukum yang mengizinkan situs lainnya menyimpan materi yang disumbangkan oleh pengguna, baik informasi maupun pendapat. Sebagian besar proyek Wikimedia adalah mengelola, merangkum, dan mengumpulkan berbagai pengetahuan di dunia. Kami mewujudkannya sesuai konteks, dan menunjukkan kepada masyarakat bagaimana memanfaatkannya.

Namun pengetahuan tersebut haruslah diterbitkan di suatu tempat yang bisa ditemukan dan digunakan oleh siapa saja. Bila disensor tanpa proses lebih lanjut, hal ini melukai sang pembicara, masyarakat, dan Wikimedia. Bila Anda hanya dapat menyuarakan pendapat jika Anda memiliki cukup sumber daya untuk menentang secara sah, atau, jika pendapat Anda telah disetujui di awal oleh seseorang yang memiliki sumber daya tersebut, sekumpulan panah sejenis yang sudah terkenal, yang berisi gagasan-gagasan, hanya akan terus menjadi kepemilikan bagi mereka yang mempunyai banyak akses.

Keputusan untuk menghentikan Wikipedia bahasa Inggris tidak dibuat oleh saya; ini merupakan keputusan yang dibuat oleh para penyunting, melalui proses pengambilan keputusan dengan konsensus. Namun, saya mendukungnya.

Seperti Kat dan seluruh dewan Wikimedia Foundation yang lain, saya telah secara mendalam memikirkan pandangan umum Wikipedia dan niat baik yang masyarakat miliki terhadap Wikipedia, yaitu sebagai sumber daya yang dapat digunakan untuk kepentingan umum. Para pembaca mempercayai Wikipedia, meskipun terdapat kesilapan, karena hati Wikipedia ada pada tempat yang benar. Kami tidak berniat untuk meminta imbalan atas apa yang masyarakat lihat, atau membuat masyarakat meyakini suatu hal tertentu, atau menjual produk kepada masyarakat. Wikipedia tidak memiliki agenda rahasia: Wikipedia hanya ingin bermanfaat bagi masyarakat luas.

Itulah kekurangan dari situs lain. Kebanyakan situs lain termotivasi secara komersial: tujuan mereka adalah untuk mendapatkan uang. Namun bukan berarti mereka tidak ingin membuat dunia menjadi tempat yang lebih baik—banyak yang ingin!—namun hal ini berarti bahwa posisi dan tindakan mereka perlu dipahami dalam konteks kepentingan yang saling bertentangan.

Harapan saya adalah bahwa ketika Wikipedia dihentikan pada 18 Januari, masyarakat akan mengerti bahwa kami melakukannya demi para pembaca kami. Kami mendukung hak setiap orang dalam kebebasan berpikir dan berpendapat. Kami pikir semua orang harus memiliki akses ke materi pendidikan dalam berbagai topik, bahkan jika mereka tidak mampu membayar. Kami percaya pada Internet yang bebas dan terbuka di mana informasi dapat dibagi tanpa halangan. Kami percaya bahwa undang-undang yang baru diusulkan seperti SOPA—juga PIPA dan hukum yang serupa lainnya yang sedang didiskusikan di dalam maupun di luar Amerika Serikat—tidak memajukan kepentingan masyarakat umum. Anda dapat membaca sebuah daftar yang sangat bagus dari Electronic Frontier Foundation yang berisikan alasan untuk menentang SOPA dan PIPA di sini.

Mengapa tindakan ini dilakukan secara global, bukan hanya di Amerika Serikat saja? Dan mengapa sekarang, ketika beberapa legislator Amerika tampak sudah mundur secara taktis?

Kenyataannya adalah bahwa kami tidak berpikir SOPA akan menghilang, dan PIPA pun masih cukup aktif. Selain itu, SOPA dan PIPA hanya indikator untuk masalah yang jauh lebih besar. Di seluruh dunia, kami melihat perkembangan undang-undang yang bertujuan untuk memberantas pembajakan daring dan mengatur Internet dengan cara lain, yang mengurangi kebebasan daring. Kekhawatiran kami tidak hanya terhadap SOPA dan PIPA: mereka hanya bagian kecil dari masalah yang sesungguhnya. Kami ingin Internet dapat tetap bebas dan terbuka, di mana saja, dan untuk siapa saja.

Pada 18 Januari, kami berharap Anda setuju dengan kami, dan akan melakukan apa pun yang Anda bisa untuk menyuarakan pendapat Anda.

Sue Gardner,
Direktur Eksekutif, Wikimedia Foundation

  Suarakan pendapat Anda!

Komentari kiriman ini!

Siaran pers resmi

Berikut ini adalah siaran pers yang dikeluarkan oleh Wikimedia Foundation, diterjemahkan oleh komunitas Wikipedia dari wmf:Press releases/English Wikipedia to go dark。

English Wikipedia to go dark January 18 in opposition to SOPA/PIPA

San Francisco -- January 16, 2012 -- On January 18, 2012, in an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.

Wikipedia administrators confirmed this decision Monday afternoon (PST) in a public statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action#Summary_and_conclusion):

Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a "blackout" of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

“Today Wikipedians from around the world have spoken about their opposition to this destructive legislation," said Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. "This is an extraordinary action for our community to take - and while we regret having to prevent the world from having access to Wikipedia for even a second, we simply cannot ignore the fact that SOPA and PIPA endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, and set a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world."

We urge Wikipedia readers to make your voices heard. If you live in the United States, find your elected representative in Washington (https://www.eff.org/sopacall). If you live outside the United States, contact your State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or similar branch of government. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and want the internet to remain open and free.

About the Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org
http://blog.wikimedia.org

The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation receive more than 474 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most popular web property world-wide (comScore, November 2011). Available in 282 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 20 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of more than 100,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.

Media Contact:

For the Wikimedia Foundation

Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
Wikimedia Foundation
Tel. +1 415 839 6885 x 6609
jwalsh@wikimedia.org

Surat dari Penasihat Hukum Yayasan Wikimedia

Berikut ini adalah surat dari Wikimedia Foundation, Geoff Brigham, yang menulis artikel tentang SOPA ini, diterjemahkan dari blog Yayasan Wikimedia

How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia

Posted by Geoff on December 13th, 2011

For the past several days, Wikipedia editors have been discussing whether to stage a protest against the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I’ve been asked to give some comments on the bill and explain what effect the proposed legislation might have on a free and open Internet as well as Wikipedia. My goal in this blog post is to provide some information and interpretation that I hope will be helpful to Wikipedia editors as they discuss the bill.

SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation, but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses.

We cannot battle, however, one wrong while inflicting another. SOPA represents the flawed proposition that censorship is an acceptable tool to protect rights owners' private interests in particular media. That is, SOPA would block entire foreign websites in the United States as a response to remove from sight select infringing material. This is so even when other programs like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have found better balances without the use of such a bludgeon. For this reason, we applaud the excellent work of a number of like-minded organizations that are leading the charge against this legislation, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Creative Commons, Center for Democracy and Technology, NetCoalition, the Internet Society, AmericanCensorship.org, and others.

On Tuesday, after receiving input on the original version of the bill, the House Judiciary Committee issued a new version of SOPA for its mark-up scheduled for this coming Thursday. A vote on that mark-up may take place on the same day. At the end of this article, I provide a summary of the most relevant parts of this new version of SOPA as well as a summary of the legislative process (which you can also follow here).

In honesty, this new version of the bill is better (and credit goes to the Judiciary staff for that). But, it continues to suffer from the same structural pitfalls, including its focus on blocking entire international sites based on U.S.-based allegations of specific infringement. Criticism has been significant. Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, for example, felt the bill “retains the fundamental flaws of its predecessor by blocking Americans’ ability to access websites, imposing costly regulation on Web companies and giving Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice broad new powers to police the Internet.”

Members of our community are weighing whether a protest action is appropriate. I want to be very clear: the Wikimedia Foundation believes that the decision of whether to stage a protest on-wiki, such as shutting down the site or putting a banner at the top, is a community decision. The Wikimedia Foundation will support editors in whatever they decide to do. The purpose of this post is to provide information for editors that will aid them in their discussions.

I’ve been asked for a legal opinion. And, I will tell you, in my view, the new version of SOPA remains a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet.

• The new version continues to undermine the DMCA and federal jurisprudence that have promoted the Internet as well as cooperation between copyright holders and service providers. In doing so, SOPA creates a regime where the first step is federal litigation to block an entire site wholesale: it is a far cry from a less costly legal notice under the DMCA protocol to selectively take down specified infringing material. The crime is the link, not the copyright violation. The cost is litigation, not a simple notice.
• The expenses of such litigation could well force non-profit or low-budget sites, such as those in our free knowledge movement, to simply give up on contesting orders to remove their links. (Secs. 102(c)(3); 103(c)(2)) The international sites under attack may not have the resources to challenge extra-territorial judicial proceedings in the United States, even if the charges are false.
• The new version of SOPA reflects a regime where rights owners may seek to terminate advertising and payment services, such as PayPal, for an alleged “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” (Sec. 103(c)(2)) A rights owner must seek a court order (unlike the previous version) (Sec. 103(b)(5)). Most rights owners are well intentioned, but many are not. We cannot assume that litigious actions to block small sites abroad will always be motivated in good faith, especially when the ability to defend is difficult.
• Although rendering it discretionary (Secs.102(c)(2)(A-E); 103(c)(2)(A-B)), the new bill would still allow for serious security risks to our communications and national infrastructure. The bill no longer mandates DNS blocking but still allows it as an option. As Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge, explained: “The amendment continues to encourage DNS blocking and filtering, which should be concerning for Internet security experts . . . .”
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation advises that the new proposed legislation still targets tools that might be used to “circumvent” the blacklist, even though those tools are essential to human rights activists and political dissidents around the world.

More specifically with respect to Wikimedia, the new version is an improvement, but, in addition to the reasons listed above, it remains unacceptable:

Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an “Internet search engine,” and, for that reason, a federal prosecutor could obtain a court order mandating that the Wikimedia Foundation remove links to specified “foreign infringing sites” or face at least contempt of court sanctions. The definition of “foreign infringing sites” is broad and could well include legitimate sites that host mostly legal content, yet have other purported infringing content on their sites. Again, many international sites may decide not to defend because of the heavy price tag, allowing an unchallenged block by the government.

The result is that, under court order, Wikimedia would be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called “foreign infringing sites,” and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors’ money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task, and it must be repeated every time a prosecutor delivers a court order from any federal judge in the United States on any new “foreign infringing site.” Blocking links runs against our culture of open knowledge, especially when surgical solutions to fighting infringing material are available.

Under the new bill, there is one significant improvement. The new version exempts U.S. based companies - including the Wikimedia Foundation - from being subject to a litigation regime in which rights owners could claim that our site was an “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” Such a damnation against Wikimedia could have easily resulted in demands to cut off our fundraising payment processors. The new version now exempts U.S. sites like ours. (Sec. 103(a)(1)(A)(ii)) In short, though there have been some improvements with the new version, SOPA remains far from acceptable. Its definitions remain too loose, and its structural approach is flawed to the core. It hurts the Internet, taking a wholesale approach to block entire international sites, and this is most troubling for sites in the open knowledge movement who probably have the least ability to defend themselves overseas. The measured and focused approach of the DMCA has been jettisoned. Wikimedia will need to endure significant burdens and expend its resources to comply with conceivably multiple orders, and the bill will deprive our readers of international content, information, and sources.

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

Geoff's notes on the bill

H.R. 3261 – STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT

Section 102

Section 102

A “foreign infringing site” is a:

• U.S. directed site:
  • Definition: Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents OR that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the U.S. Constitution; according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc.;
• Used by users in the U.S.; and
• Operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject it (or its associated domain name) to:
  • Seizure or forfeiture in the U.S. in an action brought by the Attorney General, by reason of an act prohibited by sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of 18 U.S.C.; or
  • Prosecution by the Attorney General under sections 1204 of title 17, United States Code, by reason of a violation of section 1201 of such title.

If a foreign Internet site is a “foreign infringing site,” the Attorney General (AG) can:

• Commence an action in personam against a registrant of a domain name used for the foreign infringing site OR an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
• Commence an action in rem against the foreign infringing site or the foreign domain used by such site if it cannot commence an action in personam.

On application of the AG, after commencement of either of the above actions, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against:

• A registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site if the action is in personam; or
• The foreign infringing site or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site if the action is in rem.

After an order is issued and served, the AG can require the following of:

• Internet search engines:
  • Definition: a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service in the U.S. to gather, index or report information available elsewhere on the Internet.
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
  • Order: Applicable to search engines must be narrowly tailored to be consistent with the First Amendment as the least restrictive means of achieving the goals of this Title.
• Service Provider:
  • Measures: Least burdensome, technically feasible and reasonable to prevent resolving to the foreign infringing site domain name’s IP address, taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
• Payment network providers/ Internet advertising services:
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable to halt payment processing, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days

Section 103

Definitions were changed and none of the Wikimedia.org properties (or any other U.S. registered sites) are covered by this section.

New definition of “Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property”:

• U.S. directed site OR Site for which the registrant of the domain name used, and the owner or operator are not located and cannot be found within U.S.;
  • Wikimedia is outside of this definition because based on the “U.S. directed site” definition outlined above; Wikimedia is not a foreign Internet site.
• Site is used by users within the U.S.; and
• Site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of sections 501 or 1201 of title 17 or certain provisions of the Lanham Act OR the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.

Qualifying plaintiff:

• Definition has been narrowed down to be “any person with standing to bring a civil action for violations described in paragraph 1(C),” which requires infringement, rather than any holder of intellectual property rights harmed by activities of the site.

Process

SOPA Legislative Process

House

• Full committee markup (Thursday)
  • Members of the committee study the viewpoints presented in detail. Amendments may be offered to the bill, and the committee members vote to accept or reject these changes.
    • At the conclusion of deliberation:
      • A vote of committee members is taken to determine what action to take on the bill.
      • It can be reported, with or without amendment, or tabled (which means no further action on it will occur).
      • If no vote is taken, another markup will be scheduled
• Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
    • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor.

• Rules Committee Hearing
  • Determines whether the bill will be considered under a closed rule (no amendments), an open rule (any amendment in order), or a modified closed rule (in which only some amendments are in order).
• Floor time (probably not until early January):
  • If the bill is voted on and approved to move to the Floor, floor time must be scheduled.
    • Vote to recommit: vote to send the bill back to committee might be requested.
  • Vote on final passage: if the bill is voted on and passed by the House, it moves out to conference committee.
  • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference.

Senate

• The bill is already out of Committee
• Hold on the bill:
  • Senator Wyden has placed a hold on the bill
  • Senator Reid can override the hold or call a cloture vote to defeat it.
• Manager’s Amendment
  • Possible amendments to the bill that were not voted on in committee.
    • This new bill is the one that is submitted to the floor
• Floor time (probably early next year):
  • If the hold is defeated or overridden, then floor time must be scheduled.
    • Bill voted on by roll call vote, voice vote, unanimous consent, or division.
  • If the bill is passed, it is sent out to conference committee.
  • It can also be sent back and forth between the House and Senate in order to avoid a conference committee.

Conference Committee

• Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be reconciled if anything in the two versions of the bill is different otherwise it is sent to the President (see below)
• The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences.
  • If the changes are minor, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate.
  • If changes are of a more substantial nature a conference is called.
• The conference can be closed and informal or open and very formal.
• Following negotiations, the managers make reports back to their houses. If they are able to agree on the bill, the bill is re-voted upon in both houses.
  • If they were able to agree only on some parts of the bill or unable to agree at all, the bill may go back to a new conference committee, be referred back to the committees in the two houses, or it may just die because the differences are too vast to bridge.

President

• Officially, all bills that pass both houses are signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate before being presented to the President.
  • This process could delay a bill a day or two.
• Then, the bill is delivered to the President.
  • The President may sign the bill at any time after its deliverance.
  • If it sits unsigned for more than a 10-day period, it becomes law regardless of his signature or not.
    • The exception to this 10-day period is a pocket veto, in which the President can kill a bill if it goes unsigned and Congress adjourns prior to the 10-day time limit.
  • If the President vetoes the bill, a veto message is sent back to Congress.
    • The two houses of Congress may decide to revote, and two-thirds is needed to override the veto and have the bill become a law.
      • If no immediate revote is taken, the bill can be tabled for later vote or sent back to the committee to have further work done.
      • If a vote is taken to override, and the vote fails, the bill dies.

FAQ

Untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang sering diajukan tentang RUU SOPA, Wikipedia memberikan jawaban sebagai berikut:

Results of the blackout, and looking ahead

Was the blackout successful?

The English Wikipedia joined thousands of other web sites in protesting SOPA and PIPA by blacking out its content for 24 hours. The purpose of the blackout was twofold: to raise public awareness, and to encourage people to share their views with their elected representatives.

During the blackout:

• The Wikipedia page about SOPA and PIPA was accessed more than 162 million times during the 24 hour period.
• More than 12,000 people commented on the Wikimedia Foundation's blog post announcing the blackout. A breathtaking majority supported the blackout.
• More than eight million looked up their elected representatives' contact information via the Wikipedia tool.
• Anti-SOPA and PIPA topics began trending globally on Twitter immediately after the blackout began. Hashtags included #factswithoutwikipedia, #SOPAstrike, and #wikipediablackout. At one point, #wikipediablackout constituted 1% of all tweets, and SOPA accounted for a quarter-million tweets hourly during the blackout.
• A quick search of "SOPA blackout" on Google News yielded 9,500 links as of 13:30 Pacific time, January 19.

Are SOPA and PIPA dead?

Not at all. SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith stated that the House of Representatives will push the bill forward in February. Senate sponsor Patrick Leahy still plans for a PIPA vote on January 24.

Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are symptoms of a larger issue. They are misguided solutions to a misunderstood problem. In the U.S. and abroad, legislators and big media are embracing censorship and sacrificing civil liberties in their attacks on free knowledge and an open Internet.

What will happen next with SOPA and PIPA?

Although support has slipped in both the Senate and the House, there is a Senate vote on PIPA scheduled for January 24, and the House will be moving forward as well. It is important to keep the pressure up on both houses. We expect changes that appear to tone down the damaging effects of the laws, without addressing their fundamental flaws.

What should I do now?

Keep calling your representatives! Tell them you believe in a free and open Internet!

I live in the United States. What's the best way for me to help?

The most effective action you can take is to call your representatives and tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar legislation. Type your zipcode in the locator box to find your representatives' contact information. Text-based communication is okay, but phone calls have the most impact.

I don't live in the United States. What's the best way for me to help?

Contact your country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs or similar government agency. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and any similar legislation. SOPA and PIPA will affect websites outside of the United States, and even sites inside the United States (like Wikipedia) that also affect non-American readers -- like you. Calling your own government will also let them know you don't want them to create their own bad anti-Internet legislation.

Background

What are SOPA and PIPA?

SOPA (the "Stop Online Piracy Act") and PIPA (the "Protect Intellectual Property Act" ) are bills in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, respectively. These bills are presented as efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, but in our opinion, they do so in a way that would disrupt free expression and harm the Internet. Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia (which remained available during the blackout). GovTrack lets you follow both bills through the legislative process: SOPA on this page, and PIPA on this one. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that advocates for the public interest in the digital realm, has summarized the flaws in these bills, and the threats to an open, secure, and free Internet.

How could SOPA and PIPA hurt Wikipedia?

SOPA and PIPA would put the burden on website owners to police user-contributed material and call for the unnecessary blocking of entire sites. Small sites won't have sufficient resources to defend themselves. Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed. Some foreign sites would be prevented from showing up in major search engines. And, SOPA and PIPA build a framework for future restrictions and suppression.

Wikipedia would be threatened in many ways. For example, in its current form, SOPA could require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to, to ensure it doesn't host infringing content. Any link to an infringing site could put us in jeopardy of being forced offline. The trust and openness that underlies the entire Wikipedia project would be threatened, and new, restrictive policies would make it harder for us to be open to new contributors.

What happened, and why?

Wikipedia protested SOPA and PIPA by blacking out the English Wikipedia for 24 hours, beginning at midnight January 18, Eastern Time. Visitors were not able to read the encyclopedia, and instead saw messages about SOPA and PIPA, encouragement to contact their representatives, and links to share information on social media.

Wikipedians chose to black out the English Wikipedia out of concern that SOPA and PIPA would severely inhibit people's access to information. The bills would reach far beyond the United States, and affect everyone around the world.

Does this mean that Wikipedia itself is violating copyright laws, or hosting pirated content?

Not at all. Some supporters of SOPA and PIPA falsely characterize everyone who opposes them as cavalier about copyright. Wikipedians are knowledgeable about copyright and vigilant in protecting against violations. We spend thousands of hours every week reviewing and removing infringing content as it is posted, and educating new contributors about copyright law. We are careful about it because our mission is to share knowledge freely. To that end, all Wikipedians release their own contributions under a free license. Free licenses are incompatible with copyright infringement, and so infringement is not tolerated.

I keep hearing that this is a fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Is that true?

No. Some people are characterizing it that way, probably in an effort to imply all the participants are motivated by commercial self-interest. But it's obviously not that simple; the public has a huge stake in how the Internet operates, beyond commercial Internet sites or commercial entertainment. As a non-profit, user-generated project, we run the fifth most-viewed site in the world. Unlike Hollywood and Silicon Valley, Wikipedia has no financial stake in SOPA and PIPA: we do not benefit from copyright infringement, nor are we trying to monetize traffic or sell ads. Wikipedia, and other non-profit, community-generated sites, exist to freely share knowledge, without infringing on intellectual property rights. We are protesting to protect your rights. We're on your side.

I have a question that isn't answered here, or, I would like to send feedback to Wikipedia.

You can reach Wikipedia editors at info-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. If you need a response, please be patient: we may have trouble keeping up with the mail.

Further reading

• Wikipedia's articles on SOPA and PIPA
• Statement from Wikipedia editors announcing decision to black out
• Wikimedia Foundation press release
• Blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner announcing the blackout, and her follow-up post: The message from the Wikipedia Blackout: Please leave the Internet alone
• Wikinews interviews Sue Gardner on Wikipedia blackout
• CNN interviews Jimmy Wales
• Technical FAQ about the blackout
• Launch checklist
• Electronic Frontier Foundation blog post on the problems with SOPA/PIPA

As of 13:30 Pacific Time, January 19, Google News listed 9,500 articles about the blackout. Here are a few:

• Why is Wikipedia staging a blackout and what is SOPA?, from the National Post
• Wikipedia joins blackout protest at US anti-piracy moves, from the British Broadcasting Corporation
• Wikipedia blackout over US anti-piracy bills and FEATURE: Websites blackout over 'SOPA censorship', from Al Jazeera
• Wikipedia, Craigslist, other sites go black in SOPA protest, from the Los Angeles Times
• Google Rallies Opposition to Murdoch-Backed Anti-Piracy Bill, from BusinessWeek
• SOPA protest: The Net strikes back, from Politico
• Wikipedia blackout a 'gimmick', MPAA boss claims, from the Guardian
• Wikipedia 24-hour blackout: a reader and Why we're taking Wikipedia down for a day, from the New Statesman
• Internet-wide protests against SOPA/PIPA are kicking up a storm, by the Hindustan Times
• SOPA, PIPA: What you need to know, from CBS News
• Protest on Web Uses Shutdown to Take On Two Piracy Bills, from the New York Times
• Protesting SOPA: how to make your voice heard, from Ars Technica
• Why We've Censored Wired.com, from Wired

Wawancara

Untuk sebuah wawancara dengan Yayasan Wikimedia, silakan hubungi Jay Walsh (Public Relations), Telp: +1 415 839 6885 x 6609, email: jwalshwikimedia.org. Untuk kontak atau pendiri Wikipedia Jimmy Wales, silakan e-mail ke jwaleswikia.com.

Lihat pula

• SOPA
• PIPA