January 18th, 2012
12:26 PM ET

SOPA 101: Your guide to the Internet blackout

You probably woke up this morning to realize the Internet is totally screwy.

Is it the online apocalypse? Not so much. Google, Wikipedia, Boing Boing and others have gone dark, along with thousands of others, who are protesting two anti-piracy bills that are up for debate in the U.S. Congress.

It's a debate that's pitted the Web against Washington. And if the goal of these protests was to get people talking, that sure seems to have worked, with every media organization on the planet talking about piracy today.

Many of these sites are using creative techniques to bring attention to the two bills – one called SOPA, the other PIPA – and making very clear their viewpoint on it.

Before you panic, read our quick-and-dirty guide to these online protests.

So, what are these piracy bills about?

With all of these sites going dark, it is important to know why this topic has become the center of a heated debate.

CNNMoney has a genius explainer on this topic, for those interested in all the gritty details. The gist is this: Media companies are upset that their copyrighted content gets stolen and given away for free by some websites. Two bills aim to crack down on this piracy by restricting access to U.S. websites that potentially could link to this pirated content. Tech companies in Silicon Valley say the bills have unintended consequences that could tamper with the way the Internet functions.

You can learn about it here: █████████████████, here: █████████ here:██████ and here:█████████.

Kidding! That blackout technique is part of the point these sites are trying to make today as they fully go dark.

– There’s a large blackout bar over Google’s logo.

– English-language Wikipedia sites are blacked out.

– And, don't freak out, but the tech blog Boing Boing shows a “service unavailable” error.

"Boing Boing is offline today, because the US Senate is considering legislation that would certainly kill us forever," the site says.

The humor website TheOatmeal.com has gotten the most traction for its creative use of their homepage to bring attention to SOPA.

"For the next 24 hours I am blacking out TheOatmeal.com in protest of SOPA and PIPA. If one of these bills were to pass, this page is what many sites on the internet would look like," the website reads. "As someone who creates content for the web, earns a living from it, and has had his content pirated, I do feel that we need better legislation against online piracy. I do not, however, think that SOPA or PIPA are the legislation we need."

The site's page, like many others remains black and has an animated GIF that it points out they took from somewhere else. If SOPA were to pass, the site says, they would be shut down. We'd show you the full animation, but it is a little not-safe-for-work. The animation is several images compiled from the Web with text about SOPA and a message in between, as seen above. The site asks you to join them and "please pirate the s***out of this animated GIF."

The site GOOD, which is known for its commentary on culture and society, also put up a massive splash page today.

"Today, GOOD is joining forces with friends around the world and around the internet to mobilize opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act, the flawed bills being considered in the House and Senate right now," the site says at the top of their homepage. At the bottom they thank those who share their view, in quite an upfront way.

All these sites, and thousands of others, are protesting two anti-piracy bills that are up for debate in the U.S. Congress.

They're arguing that so much of the content we share comes from other places and if this new law were to pass, much of it wouldn't be able to be published or would be censored or taken offline if it were. Links couldn't be shared to other content unless otherwise approved, the same goes for images and any other content.

That’s why companies like Google and Wikipedia are protesting and asking people to join them.

"Fighting online piracy is important. The most effective way to shut down pirate websites is through targeted legislation that cuts off their funding," a template letter for users to send to legislators says on Google's site. "There’s no need to make American social networks, blogs and search engines censor the Internet or undermine the existing laws that have enabled the Web to thrive, creating millions of U.S. jobs."

Their site includes this video:

But many companies have also come out and said they do support the legislation. Several media companies, and Rupert Murdoch himself have tweeted about their support. CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, is among those supporting the legislation.

How do people feel about the Internet blackout?

CNN iReport has a nice wrap-up of how CNN viewers feel about the blackouts.

On Twitter, some college students are angry they can’t use Wikipedia to write their term papers. (Side note: Really, college students?)

Some are making blackout jokes:

Other users had strong messages for why these bills ought to be defeated:

And, of course, stones are flying from the other camp, too, with many supporters of the anti-piracy legislation saying all these blackouts are completely ridiculous.

When is the protest going to be over?

Most of the digital protests should end by 12 a.m. ET on Thursday.

Wikipedia will be back online then. Some other sites end their protests even sooner.

So are the protests working? Is the legislation likely to pass?

Many signs indicate that the online protests - and the outrage from tech companies, generally, over the past several months; Google, Facebook and others signed a letter strongly opposing SOPA in November - are having some impact on the legislation.

One key provision of SOPA, which would have allowed the government to block certain domain names, has been eliminated. That was drawing comparisons to China's Internet policies (not a good thing if you're the U.S.)

Discussion of the bills also has been pushed back. In the House, SOPA likely won’t get a hearing until February. The Senate bill, PIPA, could be discussed in late January. Those dates are subject to constant change, and the bills are being amended regularly.

But, bottom line, commentators say the bills are losing steam:

"Before it looked like it would pass with 80 votes, and now [the online protest] looks like something that will suck the votes away," a Senate Democratic aide told CNN's Political Ticker. "We're at a tipping point. It will either become a huge issue or die down a bit and that will determine the future of this."

Some politicians, no doubt receiving a flood of tweets from constituents, are responding online too.

Is there an alternative bill?

Some members of the House are supporting a new-ish piece of legislation called the OPEN Act, which is posted online in full if you’d like to take a look. More on the details from CNNMoney's tech reporters:

Among other differences, OPEN offers more protection than SOPA would to sites accused of hosting pirated content. It also beefs up the enforcement process. It would allow digital rights holders to bring cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), an independent agency that handles trademark infringement and other trade disputes.

Some people, including Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, like the legislation, or at least the idea behind it.

Others say it doesn’t go far enough to protect copyright:

How did Wikipedia decide to go down?

The site held a vote among its editors. Some 1,800 people participated in that conversation, Wales, the Wikipedia founder, told CNN Tech on Tuesday.

CNN asked Wales if he worried about backlash to the blackout. He shrugged it off:

This is a principled stand. It comes from our community. We had this huge voting process. We just don't think in those kinds of terms. I believe our best long-term prospect for Wikipedia in terms of our survival ... depends on us being principled and making it known that, hey, Wikipedia is here to stand up for free and open Internet. I think that will drive donations in the long term. I think it will drive contributions. And, especially from what I've seen on Twitter, I think it will drive the passionate loyalty of our fans. People feel like if push comes to shove they can count on Wikipedia, and that really matters to people.

Is there a way to get around the Wikipedia blackout?

Vous parlez francais? If so, you're in luck. All of the foreign-language articles on Wikipedia are still available. If you're really desperate, you could use a service like Google Translate to get those into English.

If you have a smartphone, the mobile version of Wikipedia is up and available, according to several news reports and our trials.

On the iPad it's a little more complicated, writes The Telegraph:

On the iPad however, the site serves its full website, so although it was accessible earlier, Wkipedia is not currently available. The site is also currently displaying its articles for a very short time and then covering them with its special ‘dark’ homepage protesting against the SOPA piracy legislation. Users can hit either the “X” button on a tablet or press escape in some internet browsers if using a PC. Internet Explorer, however, does not seem to support this currently.

Finally, some reports suggest that if you press the "escape" key right as the English version of Wikipedia is loading in a standard Internet browser, you can bypass the SOPA advocacy message and go straight to articles. Worked for us, but give it a try yourself.

If none of those options work for you, check out a post from The Next List with more tips.

soundoff (389 Responses)
  1. Jeremy

    CNN's "guide" to SOPA is the most watered-down, half-assed attempt to justify bogus legislation I've ever seen a news media group produce. This is embarrassingly lopsided, and nobody should read ONLY CNN's coverage.

    January 18, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • s

      THANK YOU. the video was even more atrocious. she barely mentioned the actual harm the bills would do

      January 18, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Report abuse |
  2. uhh

    how r we suppose to learn lyrics of songs if people cant upload that???????????

    January 18, 2012 at 5:46 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  3. sapphyreopal5

    Charging almost $40 when dvds/blu-rays first come out for some movies (or closer to $30) and normally charging at least $15 for movies in stores is absolutely ridiculous if you ask me. Why can't they just sell movies for $1 online and just let customers download everything if they wish to do so (or have a dvd/blu-ray sent to their home by option? Not only would they be able to make just the same amount of money, they may even make a profit on it. I know they would make a profit because think about it. Would you rather wait several hours, days, or even weeks for something to download for free... OR would you rather wait may be a couple hours to download a movie right from the company itself? If the entertainment industry were smart, they would make it easier for customers to download their content whether it's from their computer or even their blu-ray player.
    Furthermore, if movies were priced within reason, they wouldn't have this problem. Thanks to the world of iTunes making songs $.99 or so (a few bucks for an entire album) to download, everyone wants to download. I don't know too many people who prefer getting an actual cd over simply downloading anymore.
    It's just like the stores that jackup their prices because of shoplifters. Guess what? Many shoplifters steal because they believe merchandise is way too expensive (there are exceptions to this of course).

    January 18, 2012 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  4. Matt

    For a freedom loving country, we sure do pass a lot of laws regulating what can be said, what can be seen, and what can be invented... I had Russian exchange students ask me "I thought you were free in America... we were freer in the USSR!"... that got me thinking.

    January 18, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sean

      I agree Americamis kinda starting to look like north Korea or even communism

      January 18, 2012 at 6:33 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Paulmichael

    Where the hell was this kind of coverage when the NDAA still had a chance to be vetoed??

    January 18, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  6. Greg

    Imagine if every newspaper in America, or Ebay for instance had to ensure that no stolen property was being listed/sold through them. Inept media giants are trying to shift the policing of illegal activity from people already tasked with that job with tools they already have (copyright laws) to companies like Google, or Wikipedia. Our current batch of idiots in Washington more than likely don't even understand the Internets (#43) so let's hope somebody who does is telling them that this legislation is a load of...

    January 18, 2012 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  7. Nicholas

    I still do not know what is going on here....I probably never will because I really do not care.

    January 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Relictus

      No internet for you. Is that simple enough? If those bills become law, kiss your internet goodbye. That's why you should care.

      January 18, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Report abuse |
  8. cnn fail

    CNN, this is without a doubt, the most UNINFORMATIVE article i have seen here in a LONG time. There is no description of what the bills are, what they do, and why they are under attack. I guess Time Warner stepped in and decided that you weren't allowed to actually REPORT THE TRUTH? Rupert Murdock supports it? WOW what a shock! /facepalm

    January 18, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  9. Mortran

    Something needs to be done. The whole copyright and intellectual property idea is flawed. We should get rid of it. Where would modern science be, if scientific discoveries were copyrighted and were not openly published? The copyright concept has become a major obstacle for technological progress. And the lobbyists of the billionaires in the music and entertainment industry become bolder every day that this absurd concept of a so called 'copyright' is allowed to exist.

    January 18, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  10. papa

    The Internet wasnt totally screwy. Ive not heard of Boing Boing never. Not famous..

    January 18, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  11. Stop The MafIAA

    It's amazing that in 2012, politicians still believe that they can get away with supporting narrowcast legislation for their mediacrat masters. Who benefits from this? About a dozen multinational companies. Who's harmed? Everyone in the world that uses the Net. This isn't 1998 anymore. You can't stuff another DMCA down our throats. A message to everyone in Lamar Smith's district: this time, ignore your Texas distaste for Democrats and vote against him. Eliminate his job before he eliminates tens of thousands of others.

    January 18, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • leahh

      well said!!

      January 18, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Neok

    ████ everything ████ ███ █ is █ ████ ██ fine ████ ████ ███. ████ ██ ██████. The ████ ███ █ government ████ ███ ██ knows ████ best █ ████ ██.

    January 18, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • R U Serious

      Brilliant! :)

      January 18, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Report abuse |
  13. s

    very clever caption cnn... "everything you need to know"

    corrupt journalism

    January 18, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  14. sean

    Somethings are ment to be kept private. The public does not have the right to know everything about everybody.

    January 18, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Relictus

      They particularly don't need to know about you being falsely accused of terrorism and being sent to GITMO ... it would only upset them. A free media is your protection against such things. I hope that you find my example interesting.

      January 18, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Report abuse |
  15. ???

    Here is my most politically moderate viewpoint on SOPA. I think that on the one hand, if people want to fee more secure in their lives as far as freedom on the internet goes, they can post whatever they want. On the other hand, you have websites that offer illegal downloads to music, offers free information that could be potentially inaccurate despite having sources (which could be inadequate), and sell other people's work that does not belong to them. I see a conflict here: 1) We need to have both sides agree with what they are comfortable with as far as internet censorship and freedom is concerned...and...
    2) Instead of taking sides saying, "We have rights! It's freedom of speech!" or "Piracy is rampant on the internet! Let's put an end to it!" We all know that, yes, people have a right to an opinion to what they can say on the internet as far as blogging and commenting goes, but we should also be aware of the consequences that come with them which includes, cyberbullying, piracy, and plagarism. How can we blend these two ideals together into something that EVERYONE can agree with, without ranting nor chanting, and that is gives, not an alternative, but a modification to the bill. So I can conclude that instead of going against the flow or with it, stay in the middle an offer how you can change the bill. Whoever is reading this, please be aware this is a suggestion, I am not advocating for anything, I just am tired of seeing people fighting over a bill that has not even reached congress yet. What do you think is going to happen after all this jibber jab when the bill reaches the house? Well I can tell you, it won't be pretty. Stop kickin' and screamin' and find a brand new way to manipulate the very fundamental nature of the bill into something that the citizens of this country can go with, at least majoritywise of course. I deceided I am not for and against the bill anymore; I want to see change, yes, but for good reason, not politcal buzzword, thank you.

    January 18, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.