Wikipedia's blacked out page
News corporations, newspapers and social media sites have been aflutter with news of the temporary blackout across the English pages of Wikipedia. As of 5am today, if you visit Wikipedia you’ll see a black screen explaining that the site is inaccessible for 24 hours in protest of the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) bills currently being debated in the US.
The only English pages of Wikipedia that you can view are those explaining the reasons for the blackout. These argue that the enforcement of these bills ‘actually infringes free expression while harming the internet’, rather than preventing copyright infringement as intended.
This high-profile protest is a big step for a site generally considered neutral, but a move that they feel necessary if the Internet is to remain ‘free and open, everywhere, for everyone’.
However, the blackout isn’t quite as all encompassing as it seems. If you read Wikipedia’s statement of intent in full, you will discover that is still possible to access the site on ‘mobile devices and smart phones’. In a society where an ever-increasing number of people own mobile devices, this exception somewhat undermines Wikipedia’s bold stance.
Forgive me for being a little cynical, but I can’t help but feel that a 24 hour Wikipedia blackout will be less effective than the media whirlwind surrounding it suggests.
If the blackout was implemented by Google, Twitter or Facebook, it would really make people sit up and listen. As it is, who will really be affected by the Wikipedia blackout? A few students trying to do a bit of last minute revision?
Perhaps I’m being a little unfair. I commend Wikipedia for taking a stance. Whilst Google and Facebook have offered their support, neither is likely to take similar action as they have too many shareholders and advertisers to keep content.
I just feel Wikipedia could have been a bit more assertive – perhaps through a worldwide blackout or one spanning a greater period of time. It remains to be seen how many other sites will follow suit and what effect the protest will have on the progress of the bills, but as blackouts go, I wonder if this has too many holes in to be truly effective.
Justice in the clouds? (Image: Ariaski on Flickr.)
When businesses use cloud computing, it often means they don't need to buy or install software, or run their own servers. The benefits can be compelling, but cloud computing also presents some interesting legal issues.
Because cloud computing services involve storing data outside your business, usually on servers operated by another company, there are some contractual, data protection and copyright issues to be aware of:
A software licence is the set of terms and conditions you agree to before you start using a piece of software or a cloud computing service. Software licensing can be confusing at the best of times, and there are some specific things to remember when you're choosing and using cloud computing services:
It can be hard to tell where cloud computing services actually operate from. Even those that price their services in pounds may be based outside the UK. And if you are dealing with a UK company, they may still store your data on servers in other countries.
In most cases this isn't a problem, but it's wise to aware of the issues that can arise:
This article is for general purposes and guidance only and does not constitute legal or professional advice.