Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

180 comments

Who gives a fuck? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481340)

I hope you music pirates all spend time in the cell. You thumbed your nose at the system long enough. It's time to pay the price for your theft.

Re:Who gives a fuck? (0, Offtopic)

AnujMore (2009920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481380)

Is he not excited about being the first post?

Re:Who gives a fuck? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481402)

LOL, this fool thinks this is all about pirated music.
Clearly you don't realize that supporting this bill is akin to supporting terrorism, child rape, and the murdering of baby seals. For shame!

Re:Who gives a fuck? (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481680)

LOL, this fool thinks this is all about pirated music.

Sadly, that's what the MafiAA is trying to convince the majority of the public of.

And that's what the fucking fools in Congress who said things like "We don't need to bring in a bunch of nerds to explain this bill to us" believe too. Well that and they believe in continuing to get MafiAA bribery money^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"campaign donations."

Re:Who gives a fuck? (5, Interesting)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482156)

I find it unproductive that certain members of congress openly state, "Businesses can and should regulate themselves," and then support SOPA which ignores Constitutional law.

"Enemy of my enemy is my friend." - Ancient proverb

It is promoting some kind of growth... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481686)

wet baby seal brains
facilitating my cock
in mankind's ass

Re:Who gives a fuck? (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482154)

LOL, this fool thinks this is all about pirated music.
Clearly you don't realize that supporting this bill is akin to supporting terrorism, child rape, and the murdering of baby seals. For shame!

No, he's trolling.

Re:Who gives a fuck? (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481648)

Too obvious

0/10

Re:Who gives a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38482600)

Too many rhetorical statements in 3 sentences. So many low quality trolls these days.

Re:Who gives a fuck? (2)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482438)

According tot he law it isn't "theft" it's copyright violation, now back under your bridge troll...

Google Docs? (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481350)

Can someone please post a link that is accessible to everyone, not just Google users?

Re:Google Docs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481400)

The document is public, no sign-in required. Or that's what Google says at least.

Re:Google Docs? (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481414)

The document is public, no sign-in required. Or that's what Google says at least.

If that's the case, they are lying. All I get is a sign in page.

Re:Google Docs? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481454)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&output=html

This should be a truly public version of the sheet, read-only though.

Re:Google Docs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481682)

I also get a sign on page.

That's a fine walled garden you have there, too bad for your clever design you want to show off it is in that walled garden.

Re:Google Docs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481488)

Yes, I tried it in an incognito screen. It's public.

Re:Google Docs? (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482462)

Or not truly incognito.

Re:Google Docs? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481428)

I just copied the names, because the contact information is being updated, but for what it's worth here:

http://piratenpad.de/c3ADz3hTxY

Re:Google Docs? (5, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481452)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&pli=1#gid=0 [google.com]

Whoever posted the article did so with the login as part of the link,

Re:Google Docs? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481596)

Whoever posted the article did so with the login as part of the link

Just shows that timothy doesn't open any article submitted.

BTW the link submitted by AC at the same time is better - it's html - the google docs link pops up error messages (seriously, Google, 2011???) when I open it.

Html link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&output=html [google.com] .

Re:Google Docs? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482646)

I guess some high school humor emerged from my set of repressed memories, but titling the web page, "SOPA Supporters" brought back memories of a certain type of garment.

"I crack me up sometimes" - Maverick

Re:Google Docs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481610)

I have a site that is that goal: http://www.sopalist.com/

I will be adding contact info et al soon.

My Little Pony fleshlights (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481626)

Check em out [imgur.com]

Re:Google Docs? (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482644)

I would like to see another column added, which would tally the market cap or net worth or some other statistic relating how much money these corporations have. What are we up against? It looks like a lot...

why footwear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481358)

Why on earth would Nike and Footwear assoc of blah blah care about SOPA?

Re:why footwear? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481368)

Because they want to shut down every online shop that sells cheap footwear falsely claiming it to be Nike? Actually, forget the second part - just shut down any online shop that sells cheap footwear without due process.

Re:why footwear? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481736)

Can't help it - I'm feeling like a smartass . . .

I've NEVER had due process when purchasing footwear, cheap or otherwise!

Re:why footwear? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482424)

If one casually reviews the list of "supporters," then one can see a common thread begin to emerge. The faceless ones are making law and are NOT making themselves accountable for their actions. Nor are the faceless ones paying for the services that the community has provided. It is at this point that honesty ends, and abuse begins.

"A Prince can not purchase Loyalty, do not trust Mercenaries." - Machiavelli

Re:why footwear? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481846)

Because SOPA addresses all manner of copyright-related crimes, not merely downloading media. Clothing manufacturers want it so they can block sites selling counterfeit goods with their branding on. It's a lot easier and cheaper for them to block the sites and prevent any form of payment to them than it would be to intercept every shipment at customs.

Re:why footwear? (1)

kernelfoobar (569784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482444)

But isn't it SOPA: Stop Online Piracy Act?

So the parent's question stands, why would Nike et al. care about online piracy?

Re:why footwear? (1)

kernelfoobar (569784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482464)

Nevermind, I read/commented the wrong post. My bad.

Re:why footwear? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38482670)

Its not just copyright infringement. Sites that try to bypass the usual import routes will also be targeted.
In the UK we commonly pay 50-200% more than people in the US for goods. Some places like Australia
are even worse. Every now and then someone tries to get around this by importing it themselves. This
happens frequently with wheelchairs that are often twice the price just because there is no alternative source.

It wont just be counterfeit goods, anyone who doesn't use the proper distribution channels will be hit too.

Listened to reason? (5, Insightful)

blowdart (31458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481360)

Reason? Caved into public humiliation more like. Reason had nothing to do with it, bad publicity, losing customers and losing money was what caused it - and remember GoDaddy had a clause where SOPA wouldn't apply to them anyway.

Re:Listened to reason? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481572)

Regrettably most companies won't listen to reason, only to their shareholders. So we might as well use the only other legal option that can still change their minds: negative publicity. Too much is at stake.

Let them know that siding with this atrocity that someone dared to call legislation will hit them where it hurts, however indirectly: shareholder value.

It may be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but it's certainly better than doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Re:Listened to reason? (3, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482580)

If this passes, I could shut down Makezine. They lifted some of my photos and included them in one of their on-line issues. How many times have you blogged about something and lifted a photo? This is a copyright violation just the same as if you shared a recent film.

No complaints on Makezine though. I would have given permission if they asked. They didn't ask, so they don't have permission. I'm picking on them for example only.

This is how dangerous this law is. I could shut down Makezine for copyright violations if this passes as I am the copyright owner of some images posted there.
http://makezine.com/ [makezine.com]

If this passes, they need to be very careful about what they post that is submitted by users.

GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA (5, Interesting)

classzero (321541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481408)

GoDaddy didn't reverse their position at all. They are still in support of SOPA. Here is the CEO refusing to come out against the bill:
http://gizmodo.com/5870920/brave-godaddy-ceo-says-hes-neither-for-nor-against-sopa [gizmodo.com]

Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481534)

True, what it should say is GoDaddy backtracked on their public support of SOPA. Obviously this is not because they had some ethical revelation, they just saw money being lost.

Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481630)

Ethi... ethi...I'm sorry, I can't find that word in my MBA dictionary, what does it mean?

Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481676)

what does it mean?

It means "lower profits" and/or "less competitive."

Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482016)

Ah. Well, why the hell would any corporation want to have anything to do with that?

Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA (5, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481538)

100% right. And we can get a good guess where their policy is coming from when we see that Christine Jones has this on her Blog [rudysyndrome.com] , undersigned in her role as general counsel and corporate secretary of GoDaddy.com

The debate about the contents of this bill, and its companion bill in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act, has been heated in recent weeks, as companies within the Internet ecosystem have rallied to lobby against the passage of legislation which might hold us accountable.

That myopic view has never been shared by Go Daddy.

The boycott of Go Daddy should not stop until at least Christine has been fired.

Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481848)

"Brave CEO"? Shooting wild elephants? Yeah, real brave.

Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482480)

A lot more people are injured while hunting then while Internet trolling.

And I hate you for making me defend that idiot in charge of GoDaddy.

STOP SOCIALISM AND SUPPORT SOPA! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481924)

When will you socialists learn that stealing from the rich is un-Christian? Maybe you people should get a job and save up your money for a REAL Rolex watch instead of supporting the godless communists in China who make these cheap imitations.

If you whiners had any family values then you would be supporting SOPA. SOPA supports American corporations, and American corporations give the 99-percenters jobs. So if you socialists want a job then you should support SOPA. What you people should be protesting against is Entitlements like welfare, unemployment insurance, free education and Medicare and Medicaid. If people would actually pay for what they use then the 99-percenters would be contributing to the economy by flipping burgers and pumping gas instead of protesting against the god-fearing corporate leaders that are trying to make America great.

How many of you are at home reading Slashdot right now instead of watching christian television with your children? How many of you donate 10% of your income to your local tele-vangelist?... oops, I forgot you people are unemployed: don't wanna work and don't wanna live in Christ.

At least Bob Parsons is a Christian, a Christian and an elephant hunter. He is against counterfeit watches. I can't understand why the Slashdot community wants to support illegality and criminality. The people against SOPA are un-corporate and un-Christion. Socialism never worked in Soviet Russia, and it isn't working in Canada under their version of Obamacare. Please folks, STOP SOCIALISM AND SUPPORT SOPA!

LVMH (2, Funny)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481422)

no $1000 handbag for my wife now.

Re:LVMH (1)

halo1982 (679554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481742)

no $1000 handbag for my wife now.

All of the major fashion houses are for SOPA due to knock-offs diluting their brands. See Dolce & Gabbana and others on this list.

Of course you can't dilute the Louis Vuitton brand any more than they have with their tacky monogram logo plastered all over everything, but that's an argument for another time.

Re:LVMH (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481892)

they did that because then they can use trademark law as there isn't copywrite protections on fashion items yet.Having your company logo all over means you can sue for trademark infringement.

Re:LVMH (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482230)

they will abuse it to eliminate knockoffs and legitimate competition alike.

Re:LVMH (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482490)

I didn't know that guy selling purses out of his trunk had a website...

GoDaddy did *not* reverse position (5, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481430)

They said they will simply take a less forward stance (less openly pro-SOPA). They definitely did not change course.

Re:GoDaddy did *not* reverse position (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481520)

They said they will simply take a less forward stance (less openly pro-SOPA). They definitely did not change course.

Exactly. Let's stop sucking GoDaddy's dick as if they did anything more than release a meaningless statement for PR damage control. It's no wonder nothing changes when people are so naive and trivially manipulated. GoDaddy still supports SOPA as strongly as they ever did. Anyone cancelling their plans to boycott, like that idiot LOLcats Cheezburger CEO, over knee-jerk PR responses are going to be the ones that allow SOPA or something like it to pass easily. Luckily, not everyone is that dumb.

crowdsourced (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481432)

"Perhaps they should be contacted to find out if they still fully support SOPA, or have changed their mind."
 
...or ever supported it to begin with. Anyone on the planet can add a company to this list with no confirmation that it's true. And there's nothing to prevent anyone from deleting companies. Sounds like a great mechanism to slander or harass innocent companies, and one that's oh-so-easy to sabotage by someone who supports SOPA. Good luck with this.

Re:crowdsourced (4, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481832)

Interesting. If it's "slander" to say Company X supports SOPA, then it must be a very heinous bill indeed.

I get your point: That there's no proof of fact-checking, and I can't find a single person among my associates, friends or family that doesn't detest SOPA; However, a company's name mistakingly placed on a list of entities for or against any bill shouldn't equate to slander. If being associated with the bill in any way is cause for libel, then who could ever support or create it in the first place?

Although I'm not aware of any individuals who are for SOPA, I don't doubt their existence. Would not being incorrectly placed on the list of SOPA supporters have a positive effect in this regard? Are you not also assuming a false dichotomy, of those who are for and those against SOPA?

What of those, like me, who realize they are too disenfranchised to give a damn either way? I'm against SOPA and other such bills that rob us of personal rights, but you must realize that government and corporations by and large wants this to pass. This SOPA or a bill like it WILL pass eventually. The sooner the better.

Not until the common people feel the jack-boot of oppression at their own throats will they have the resolve to rally in opposition to this and other such corruptions of power.

(Undoing a mod to post this)

Re:crowdsourced (1)

BondGamer (724662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482140)

However, a company's name mistakingly placed on a list of entities for or against any bill shouldn't equate to slander.

It isn't about someone mistakenly putting a name on the list, it is about someone purposefully putting a name on the list. Slander is when you say something you know is not true. Someone could spend all day putting Slashdot on that list and X amount of people are going to see it. Some will eventually learn the truth, but there will always be those who forever think Slashdot supported SOPA.

Re:crowdsourced (2)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482550)

"Slander is when you say something you know is not true. "

Under US law it's an untrue statement that's either known to be false, or made with reckless disregard for the truth. If I inserted Geeknet into the list in an effort to cost them business that's a known falsehood. Publishing the list with their name but without confirming it is (arguably) reckless disregard for the truth. Either would be slander.

Re:crowdsourced (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482508)

Anyone on the planet can add a company to this list with no confirmation that it's true. And there's nothing to prevent anyone from deleting companies. Sounds like a great mechanism to slander or harass innocent companies, and one that's oh-so-easy to sabotage by someone who supports SOPA. Good luck with this.

Amusingly enough, that is how SOPA is designed to work.

Information Sources? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481442)

I'd like to see a column containing the source of data indicating that the entity supports SOPA. SOPA support is quickly becoming the 'PR Mark of Death' so there needs to be some semblance of certainty that each entity should really be on that list.

Re:Information Sources? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481482)

There are a few .pdf files floating around. (I tried to access one at a .gov site today and it had gone.) Check Techdirt.com for coverage on this issue.

Re:Information Sources? (1, Insightful)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481644)

Unless they come out against it then they are for it. Godaddy might have stopped publicly supporting it for PR reasons but they sure as shit are still behind it.

Re:Information Sources? (1)

halo1982 (679554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481816)

I'd like to see a column containing the source of data indicating that the entity supports SOPA. SOPA support is quickly becoming the 'PR Mark of Death' so there needs to be some semblance of certainty that each entity should really be on that list.

Then create a column and hunt down the information yourself for the benefit of others! See crowdsourced! <snark />

But yeah, on a non-snarky note I agree with you and this information should be included.

Sucks to be an american (5, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481472)

(Hopefully this wont get /. a take down notice!)
Sung to the tune of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American"

"Sucks to be an American"

[Verse]
If tomorrow all my posts were gone I'd created all my life,
And I had to start again under a lawsuit filled with strife.
I'd curse my karma to be living here today,
'Cause congress sold the flag of freedom
And the corporations took it away.

[Chorus]
It sucks to be an American
Where we have Fox News on TV
My girl can't sing a cover of Brittney Spears
Because SOPA's censored she,
They issued a take down, and sued my family
For 15 million bucks,
Cause there ain't no doubt congress sold this land,
And SOPAs just one way.

[Verse]
From the Sony lakes of Minnesota, to the Disney hills of Tennessee
Across the plais of RCA Texas, from company to company.
From multinational owned Detroit and Houston and L.A,

There's fear in every American heart
And it's time we stand and say:

[Chorus]
It sucks to be an American
Where we have Fox News on TV
My girl can't sing a cover of Brittney Spears
Because SOPA's censored she,
They issued a take down, and sued my family
For 15 million bucks,
Cause there ain't no doubt congress sold this land,
And SOPAs just one way.

Re:Sucks to be an american (2)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481700)

(Hopefully this wont get /. a take down notice!)

They will, eventually.

It sucks to be an American

Don't worry; once this abortion of a bill passes in the States, America Junior (Canada) will implement their own version, with the EU to follow closely behind.

Re:Sucks to be an american (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481990)

Wait, it sucks that we have freedom of speech, because the Fox News commentators can say things you disagree with?

Dude, it's called the First Amendment. It's one of the great things about being an American, and one of the best justifications for killing SOPA.

Also please tell your daughter that she should probably quit singing the Britney covers. Everyone at school is making fun of her.

Re:Sucks to be an american (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482766)

FYI, I do believe whole-heartedly in free speech. I just used Fox News to fill you the syllables. I could have just as easily used MSNBC. Both say (IMHO) some reprehensible things, but they have the right to do so. And BTW, the whole thing is meant as a joke!

Gaming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481486)

Really surprised that Sony Computer Entertainment weren't in the list. Only seems to be their dodgy music branches.
No Microsoft either, strangely.

Nintendo are in there though, as are EA.
Of all the gaming companies I expected to be involved, it wasn't Nintendo.

Re:Gaming. (3, Interesting)

TrueSatan (1709878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481614)

Microsoft is a SOPA supporter by proxy in that it is a member of the pro SOPA Business Software Alliance. By doing their dirty work this way some other companies may also be attempting to escape being named and shamed as SOPA supporters. Note...Kapersky terminated their BSA membership over the SOPA issue. Wikipedia is kind enough to list the BSA members for us so perhaps this list (excluding Kapersky) should be added to this campaign? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance [wikipedia.org]

Re:Gaming. (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481650)

Sony is all over it, did you check page 2?

Re:Gaming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481874)

"Sony computer entertainment", as in, SCE.
They are a separate branch to music, pictures and electricals branches.

Re:Gaming. (2)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482316)

Not just SCE.

Sony Electronics Inc.
Sony Music Entertainment
Sony Music Nashville
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Sony/ATV Music Publishing

Autodesk (4, Interesting)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481490)

Considering Autodesk actually stands to gain a little by allowing individual pirates to use their software (ie hobbyists who cant afford outrageous fees) , I am surprised to see them on this list. I would also be surprised to see adobe on here, but gladly they are not.

Large communities surround 3D studio max, Maya, and Mudbox. The likelihood they paid for the software is minimal, and the likelihood they make content that generates revenue is even smaller. But! They also become the back bone to an industry of artists who DO create revenue generating content. Allowing younger individuals to use this software builds, how ever silly, alliances to that software and in turn probable profit for Autodesk down the line.

I would like to hear arguments against this position though.

Thoughts?

Re:Autodesk (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481574)

I would like to hear arguments against this position though.

Simple: Autodesk would rather force people to go to a trade school, community college, or university to learn how to use their products, since schools are willing to pay for expensive site-licenses for software. Autodesk still benefits from everything you said, while also receiving license payments.

Re:Autodesk (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481762)

Autodesk very aggressively gives away their products for free, if they find the right context.
FIRST robotics is one of those contexts; they give thousands and thousands of high school students full licenses for 3D Studio Max and Inventor for free. Before Autodesk started doing that, a lot of the teams pirated the software, but Autodesk has taken out the middleman.

They do therefor see the value of having a young userbase who can't generally afford to buy the software outright.

Re:Autodesk (1)

danfromsb (965115) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482308)

Almost all Autodesk Software is free for students, staff, and faculty. This includes the big guns like AutoCad, Inventor, Maya, etc. This cannot be said for nearly any other company. Also, they do have reasonably priced "hobby" versions of some of their software. Autodesk 123D is a surprisingly useful tool to model in 3D and is free.

I'm not (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481588)

They are morons when it comes to their software. If they understood the hobbyist/student thing, they'd have cheaper versions available. You have a scaled down thing for home users, and the heavy hitting one for pros. You see this with things pro audio and video software. Sony makes a cut down version of Vegas for like $45 for people who just want to play, and the heavy hitting thing for pros is $600. Or Microsoft who not only has various versions of things like Visual Studio but outright gives it away to students in CS/CE programs.

That Autodesk doesn't do this tells you why they support this. They are morons. They don't get that students aren't going to drop three grand for software, no matter how relevant it is to their studies. Hell, their idea of a "cheap" product is AutoCAD LT which is still $500.

Some companies understand that you want to have something to get hobbyists, but particularly students, in to your software. Others don't, ultimately to their detriment.

Re:I'm not (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481632)

students aren't going to drop three grand for software

No but schools will drop hundreds of thousands of dollars on site licenses. What do you think a typical college pays for a site license for Autocad or Matlab? These companies would rather see students learning how to use their software in a trade school.

Re:I'm not (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482414)

>Hell, their idea of a "cheap" product is AutoCAD LT which is still $500.

And LT is a 2D cad.

You want CAD that will read .dwg files?

Dassault's Draftsight. It's free. It's also cross platform - Windows, Macintosh, and Linux.

--
BMO

Re:Autodesk (3, Insightful)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481796)

Also, Monster cables is on this list. Which is HILARIOUS... considering they ARE the crooks. Fucking amazing.

Wait?? (2, Informative)

eclectro (227083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481542)

What exactly does the Fraternal Order of Police stand to gain from passage of SOPA exactly??

Re:Wait?? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481578)

More work for law enforcement? Or just the standard, "If politicians say this will help American workers, then we as a union stand with our fellow workers and support this measure."

Re:Wait?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481618)

More officers paid with taxpayer money to chase down SOPA-related stuff instead of more significant crimes.

Re:Wait?? (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481684)

I can see why the cops would support, easy arrests for their record on their way to Sargent. "Australian Medical Council" is the one that perplexes me most.

Re:Wait?? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481704)

What exactly does the Fraternal Order of Police stand to gain from passage of SOPA exactly??

Instant removal of sites hosting videos and pictures of police brutality or improper conduct?

Re:Wait?? (1)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482250)

So they can take town sites that mention "xx County Police Department" at copyright/trademark violations. Censorship invariably helps the corrupt first.

Re:Wait?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38482372)

And the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Trademark Association (INTA), International Union of Police Associations, some builders and other really strange groups.

Christians are in Favour of SOPA (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481556)

Lets not believe all the hype. GoDaddy has decided, for business reasons, that it is no longer publicly supporting SOPA. GoDaddy is NOT publicly saying that they are against SOPA.

From the GoDaddy Website (and with the assistance of their lawyers and public relations team):

In changing its position, Go Daddy remains steadfast in its promise to support security and stability of the Internet. In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.

"Go Daddy has always fought to preserve the intellectual property rights of third parties, and will continue to do so in the future," Jones said.

Doesn't sound like much of a retreat to me, especially when they say (in regards to SOPA and the DMCA, that "... and we will continue to do so in the future.".

Also, something interesting, if you look at the official list of SOPA supporters, it is filled with a lot of Christian organizations (they either have the word Christian in their name, or they are Christian conservative in their lifestyles and political beliefs), like this group:
Concerned Women for America, whose mandate is:

We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 28-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. We help people focus on six core issues, which we have determined need Biblical principles most and where we can have the greatest impact.

Not that I am trying to Troll or make this into a religious controversy, but I do find it curious that along with the usual suspects like the big media conglomerates, that there would be so many Christian organizations interested in stopping the sale of counterfeit Rolex watches. Though I think we all know that when governments and corporations band together to promote a police state for our own protection, things aren't always as they appear.

And speaking of corporations, why am I forced to create a Google account just so that I can RTFA?!

References:
https://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup [godaddy.com]
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf [house.gov]

Re:Christians are in Favour of SOPA (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482630)

Fundamentalists will love this. Goodby pornhub, redtube, pichunter, and so on... They want to send porn back to DVDs and dirty magazines.

Xerox (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481622)

I find it ironic Xerox is on the support list considering you could easily argue their products are dedicated to infringement. I wonder if they would support it if the government required them to build mechanisms into their products to prevent copying unauthorized materials?

Re:Xerox (2, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481880)

IIRC, most color photocopiers (and some printers) detect efforts to copy US currency and refuse. I don't think it's a government mandate, just all copier manufacturers realising that if they didn't do it voluntarily, it'd be mandated sooner or later. Given that very few people have a legitimate reason for copying money (The only one I can think of would be as props in photos or performances), it mostly goes unnoticed.

Re:Xerox (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481906)

Yup [wikipedia.org] .

They just need to implement generic marking for copyrighted material.

Re:Xerox (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482666)

Actually, in most cases it is the driver. Printers do not have enough horsepower to check every image that way.

Re:Xerox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481896)

That was especially painful for me to see since my paycheck ultimately comes from Xerox. It's bad enough when it's hard to avoid buying from some of these companies, but it's worse when one's own profit, so to speak, comes from a company supporting this kind of broken legislation.

Godaddy PR Dept (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38482090)

Anybody interested, the name is Stephanie Bracken, and the phone number is 480-505-8800 x4451, and cell phone is 480-285-9068.

Ford should not be on that list ... (2)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482376)

https://twitter.com/#!/Ford/

We haven't specifically supported the proposed bill. We believe IP protection is crucial & believe in Internet freedom ^SM

Excuse us, but we never specifically said anything about that particular bill. (con't)^SM

We believe IP protection is crucial and will work with Congress to balance innovation & Internet freedom. ^SM

No official position; we support legislation that protects IP but want innovation to flourish (i.e. Internet freedom) ^SM

My personal opinion (0)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482520)

Slashdot should stay out of politics which is what this is, it's OK to report on what's happening with SOPA. but linking to a list for response to SOPA and encouraging members to get active against it is political, just stay out of that portion of this fiasco.

I think most of us (except the Christian elephant hunters) are capable of making good choices here.

Re:My personal opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38482628)

Except that which impacts on our work, our industry, and our lives.
Example: you are a small business owner who "accidently" gets tagged as doing something which one of this act's supporters don't like. Bye bye to your website, emails, etc. and you go out of business. Think it can't happen? It has already with ICE. Imagine the fun and chaos that will ensue from this being passed.

By the way, I won't be buying any more McGraw Hill books or products. McGraw-Hill Companies and McGraw-Hill Education are listed on the spreadsheet.

Apropriate capcha: wakeup

Free speech doesn't apply to SOPA supporters. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38482530)

If you support SOPA, you will have your business destroyed. Kind of funny that, in the interest of preserving free speech, people are taking such an anti-free speech approach to ensure it.

Re:Free speech doesn't apply to SOPA supporters. (1)

Georules (655379) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482640)

Free speech doesn't mean people are forced to do business with you regardless of what you say. I own my money and I get to choose where I spend it. That doesn't violate anyone's free speech. If someone wants to support SOPA/Protect IP, I agree they have every right to say so. If I can find an alternative from their service or product, I will certainly prefer to do business with people I like.

Evidence? (2)

qtp (461286) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482606)

While I think that this list is a worthwhile effort, there should be some evidentiary requirement for an entity to be listed.

Public commentary, news releases, statements in interviews, response to inquiry, etc. are verifiable and not difficult to find or obtain.

It is possible that some have been listed erroneously, by either good or ill intentioned persons.

Without some method of including evidence the usefulness and value of this list is questionable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...