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!

EA, Nintendo, Sony Quietly Withdraw SOPA Support

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the revising-their-ok-cupid-profiles dept.

Censorship 204

wbr1 writes "Electronista reports that Sony, Nintendo, and Electronic Arts have all pulled their support for SOPA, but have not issued any statements as to why. The list of SOPA supporters is here."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Anonymous Threatened Sony (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548136)

There's no way to know if this influenced it but Anonymous threatened Sony on Youtube [] (transcript here [] and a few more specifics here [] ) the other day. Of course, even if that did influence Sony I'm sure the last thing you'd want is to send Anonymous the message that they can push you around so don't bother waiting for admission/explanation.

Looking at this list, there's far better targets of groups of lawyers and lobbyists that don't do a goddamn thing or sell any tangible product. Not sure why those wouldn't be prioritized by Anonymous but, well, that's crowdsourcing for you. Maybe they identified Sony as the biggest fish that would disrupt the highest number of placated sheep who might actually contact their senator when their opiate flow is disturbed? Nahhhh ...

Re:Anonymous Jigaboos (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548180)

Ok think about this and see if you can have a real answer not just handwaving...

Races other than blacks have been enslaved in the past, discriminated against, denied civil rights, mistreated, hated, and oppressed. But blacks as a group have the highest rates of anything like rates of violent crime (proportional), drug abuse, spousal abuse, children born out of wedlock, illiteracy, alcoholism, obesity (especially their women) and theft and simultaneously the lowest rates of high school graduation, home ownership, scientific achievements, business ownership and college degrees.

Like I said other races have faced terrible racism. Think of the Jews just to name a recent one. But the Jews do much better for themselves than the blacks and their worst persecution was much more recent than US black slavery. Unlike the blacks there's Jews alive today who remember the Holocaust. As a group, the Jews consistently beat the blacks on any of the metrics I wrote above. So do the whites. So do Asians.

The whole "oh noes its not their fault it's because of RACISM" really starts wearing thin. Maybe that (barely) explains one or two of the metrics above. It does not explain all of them. It does not explain why others who also faced racism do so much better, why they're more civilized and successful. It is a true valid comparison of apples and apples.

So WTF is wrong with black people? I mean if somebody does believe they are genetically inferior (true racism) they have a lot of justifications for feeling that way. It's not like they just woke up one day and said "hey I'm going to try something new, I am going to start hating black people!". No, they get the idea from seeing how most black people are and wondering if they're going to get mugged by some gang member for accidentally making eye contact.

I don't think it's genetics I think it's their anti-achievement culture. Any black person in the ghetto who wants to get out of the ghetto by bettering himself is harassed, intimidated, beaten up for "acting white". They keep themselves down. It's no one's fault but their own. It's as simple as that.

I'm tired of everyone acting like it's some big deal to say this. I'm not harming black people in any way. To hate me for having an informed opinion is another stupid taboo the same way a woman showing her ankles was once a great big risque deal. I'm tired of being expected to feel sorry and guilty and to kiss their ass. If they want me to do that, they should try wiping it once in a while. They can do that by telling those race-dividing clowns Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to shut the hell up because they don't represent all of them, stop playing the victim every time any part of their life doesn't go their way and grow up and start taking some positive action about their own situation.

Until they can do that it's only fair not to consider them equals. All men are born equal but a lot of them seem damned determined to take themselves down a peg or two.

Re:Anonymous Jigaboos (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548466)

spot on!

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548224)

Attacking sony will only justify more control and censorship.
y u no simply boycott? I don't believe it solves anything because the system is evil not just one or the other corporations, but it sends a message.

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (-1, Flamebait)

InterestingFella (2537066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548346)

You really think Anonymous played any role in it? If anything it only made Sony more pro-establishment. You're idiot, eldavojohn.

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (1, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548560)

(transcript here [] and a few more specifics here [] )

Aggh. Why're people so in love with links that only read "here"? They're not quite informative.

But hey, happy new year. :)

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548860)

Because it's the same damn thing transcribed as the prior Youtube link that was descriptive?

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (2)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549536)

Because it flows with the sentence it's built into?

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (5, Insightful)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548566)

Short answer: If Sony had felt threatened by Anonymous, it would only have strengthened their resolve.

No, IMHO the reason these corporations have withdrawn their support may be twofold, one may just be because they are starting to realize that SOPA may very well backfire on them legally. With SOPA there is no real competition left, and in that environment, what you can do to your competitors, they can do to you just as well.

However the most recent event, which I think shaped their decision, is the customer reaction to GoDaddy's support for SOPA. That told them that customers are actually willing talking with their wallet, and when they do, it can hurt them.

MAD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548780)

If SOPA passes, one of the first things that will happen, is that the businesses who support it and stores that sell their products, will be among the first domains taken away in accordance with the law.

SOPA is the "hydrogen bomb" of censorship, and MAD is its solution.

Re:MAD (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549246)

Unlikely. Laws like this tend to have 'wink and nod' exceptions for big players.... any case that is 'obvious' will quietly get dropped.

MAD, published by Warner Bros. (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549690)

SOPA is the "hydrogen bomb" of censorship, and MAD is its solution.

The publisher of MAD is still on the list of supporters. MAD is published by EC Comics, a unit of DC Comics, a unit of Time Warner.

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (5, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549032)

I don't think Sony gives two left shits about Anons.

It's probably when Kotaku and the rest of the gaming news media caught on to who's supporting SOPA did they shit their pants.

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (4, Insightful)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549104)

One has to ask, "are these corporations publicly supporting SOPA?" The answer is becoming a resounding, "NO!" But what about privately? Proxy lawyers are just as lethal, but can be untrustworthy.

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549646)

That's what I think. Here's the real title: EA, Nintendo, Sony Publicly Withdraw SOPA Support. Negotiations ACTA-style will continue.

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (5, Insightful)

Technician (215283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548904)

SONY is only one player. I just got off the phone leaving voice mail for some others on the list. Call them. Write them. Let your voice be heard. Give examples. First I told them I understood that piracy of film and music is a problem. I then told them I could shut down Slashdot, Picasa, Photobucket, Makezine, and many anti scam websites, etc for posting photos and text that users shared but did not make. Sites I use to promote my work would be shut down if this passes. Make it clear that the piracy is a problem, but the proposed solution would shut down sites individuals use. We do not need the Internet to become just another TV or radio station for big media. The Internet would be of no use if that happens.

Slashdot could be shut down for most everything placed in quotes. This is WRONG.

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548966)

Actually, I rather doubt that had anything to do with it at all.

Sony and its leaders are pretty arrogant. They know any attack is temporary. They might have to stop online sales or the collection of sales/personal data on internet connected servers or things like that, but it wouldn't otherwise faze them.

No, what I think got to them is the tremendous and mobile public response made against the likes of Go Daddy. I'm ever so proud of our internet. And by internet, I don't mean the network devices, ISPs and other business and government presence. I mean the people who use it. You reading this now are the internet... the 'series of tubes' that you are. :)

The internet is really coming into its own as a force for public expression and more importantly for change in the public's interest. It's the last chance the world really has for "peaceful revolution" as it were. For a lot of us, we imagine there will be jack-boots marching across the US and small groups of resistance everywhere. It's not that hard to imagine really. But lately, it seems the business interests which pay [read: buy] the government is having its money supply threatened. That's where the real fear comes into play.

Fact is, most of all this 'online piracy' is over things which aren't necessary for life. It's entertainment. There will always be entertainment even if we have to sing and play it for ourselves. (YouTube has proven that well enough I think) If people get pissed off enough to boycott any of them in large numbers for any amount of time, they will not just interrupt cash flow for the short term, people will begin to realize that a world without Sony or Nintendo would be... not so different... not so bad. And believe me -- a Linux based F/OSS console and gaming network would spring up so fast with Google's Android as the core, it would become a huge game changer.

They can't afford to piss off their customers any longer. THAT's the fear you are witnessing them act on.

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (3)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549392)

You reading this now are the internet... the 'series of tubes' that you are. :)

I like the extrapolation: my body is a series of tubes that allow communication between remote parts of my body. The internet is similar, in that it allows communication between remote parts of the world. I really like the biological metaphor, because it truly is like the world is developing into a new organism. A much larger, much harder-to-destroy organism. (For the karma, it's something like a car as well. ;)

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549398)

"They can't afford to piss off their customers any longer."
Very true.
Maybe you didn't see what happened with Verizon. Consumers are getting a voice and Anonymous is a megaphone.

Long-form video games (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549742)

And believe me -- a Linux based F/OSS console and gaming network would spring up so fast with Google's Android as the core, it would become a huge game changer.

Who would make long-form, high-production-value video games for such a platform? Video games distributed as free software and most games on the phone app stores tend to be short-form, the kind of game that has its beginning, middle, and end in 5 to 10 minute plays. But where's the free counterpart to Super Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess or the single-player campaign of Call of Doody, erm, Duty series?

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549004)

No, just no.
They, along with the others, had already dropped support earlier in the month.
This is just everyone else catching up AFTER it happened.

See, the thing with Anonymous is they pick easy targets.
They already tried to attack Nintendo and failed. Hard.
Microsoft, who knows. Sony, after the first failure and their constant attempts to lock things down, who wouldn't want to target them constantly? Even if it is stupidly simple SQL injections.

Considering how pretty much all of the people who have been involved in all those DDoSing have been destroyed by the law ("wats a proxi") for voluntarily being in a botnet and attacking websites, the very small numbers involved now are the only technically literate ones. They lost all their slaves and zombies, which was the only power most Anonymous cells really had, besides the few actual hacker groups. (and even then, most of them are pretty guff, such as Lulzsec who piggy-backed on others work at seclists and so on)
The only ones I can remember that were decent were a group of ex-4channers and goons who work together and take down crappy people who generally make the world slightly more terrible to live in.
While Sony at best are a little greedy, they aren't necessarily evil in the global sense. So they'd not really attack them.
Or even SOPA supporters at that. It's not like SOPA is a threat at all. Hell, if anything, SOPA will push P2P DNS and other projects even further to completion and they will have absolutely no control after that. So, go SOPA go, we're counting on you!

Re:Anonymous Threatened Sony (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549224)

Well, lobbyists and other such groups do not really have a reputation or revenue stream that can be impacted by anonymous, so they would not make sense as targets.

But The Really Didn't.... (5, Informative)

mlauzon (818714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548166)

Because Nintendo, Sony, and EA are members of the ESA, and the ESA supports SOPA, means that Nintedo, Sony, and EA support SOPA!

Re:But The Really Didn't.... (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548186)

"No! Not anymore! Really! We like you! Buy our crap!"

Re:But The Really Didn't.... (4, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548756)

"No! Not anymore! Really! We like you! Buy our crap!"

Witnesses say they were riding their shiny new signature-series GoDaddy Backpeddler 3000 a the time they overheard this...

Re:But The Really Didn't.... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548324)

As do Microsoft and many other ESA members.

Re:But The Really Didn't.... (4, Informative)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548358)

There have been a lot of articles specifically about Microsoft and Apple pushing the ESA to back off SOPA. There may be some dissension in the ranks.

Re:But The Really Didn't.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548622)

Is Apple a member? They aren't listed on the website.

Re:But The Really Didn't.... (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548862)

Do you mean the business software alliance which supposedly MS and others got them to change their mind but afaik nothing was done in the ESA and I get the impression MS did it more for PR because they went from being nice guys for not supporting SOPA to people being informed they were part of a group that supported it so they did what they had to due to consumer pressure.

Re:But The Really Didn't.... (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548896)

There have been a lot of articles specifically about Microsoft and Apple pushing the ESA to back off SOPA. There may be some dissension in the ranks.

Don't know about Apple but you can understand why with MSFT as piracy is their bestest friend! just look at how quick they backed off that reduced functionality mode on Vista when it looked like the pirates would stay on XP, having the number of websites reporting MSFT OSes having no way to distinguish pirate versions from legit gives MSFT higher numbers which helps them sell more copies to OEMs. Can you imagine how quickly someone would invest in Linux to come up with a version that worked for the masses if Windows piracy was ended tomorrow and everyone had to pay retail? Hell Windows 7 is easier to pirate than XP and Vista ever was!

These companies are starting to realize that SOPA is a good way to shoot themselves in the head because the one that is a pirate now ends up being a paying customer later with the knowledge to use their software, just ask adobe with PhotoShop. i bet every Photoshop customer was a one time kid that pirated the thing and by the time they got out into the world the had PS skills which meant more customers for Adobe. Wasn't it Gates that said "If they are gonna pirate i want them to pirate from us"? I know I saw Ballmer a few years ago give an interview where he said flat footed to the effect "I couldn't care less about some kid passing a copy of XP around the dorm room, i care about the boat coming from Manila with pirate copies that are so good i can't tell them apart" because he knew that piracy keeps people using MSFT software!

I just wish Ballmer wasn't such a dipshit as he had literally tripped over a way to end Windows piracy in the west and let it slip away. That $50 Win 7 HP upgrade which would install on a clean drive frankly was amazing, I saw guys who had NEVER owned a legit Windows suddenly all running legal copies of Windows. Its just a damned shame these companies can't see what Valve saw years ago, which is the trick is not to ruin the web with draconian laws trying to end piracy but to get the pirates switched over into paying users. I'd love to see what kind of money they made off the Xmas sale this year as i bet it was truly insane because by making their service cheap and easy it literally is easier to buy from Steam than pirate anymore. Too bad the others like the MPAA can't seem to catch that clue.

Re:But The Really Didn't.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548368)

Business Software Alliance (BSA) supports SOPA and of course their biggest supporters and founding members Apple and Microsoft.

a recent BSA bulletin:

The Business Software Alliance today commended House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) for introducing the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (H.R. 3261) to curb the growing rash of software piracy and other forms of intellectual property theft that are being perpetrated by illicit websites.

If it was quiet... (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548172)

"EA, Nintendo, Sony Quietly Withdraw SOPA Support"

If it was quiet, they still support it. They just don't want to lose as many customers.

Re:If it was quiet... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548668)

Lets see, haven't bought Nintendo crap since 04, never bought any Sony games or hardware, and I believe last time I paid EA for anything was sometime in 07. Yeah they should fear losing me as a customer :-)

I urge all to stop supporting evil.

Re:If it was quiet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548970)

Uhh, if it was quiet, wouldn't that mean they weren't making a big deal out of it and thus didn't care about the publicity or if anyone noticed? The fact that it was quiet seems to point to the exact opposite of the dumb conclusion that you made.

Not Entirely Withdrawn (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548178)

They have only reduced their support, rather than fully withdrawn it.

According to Destructoid [] they are still members of The ESA [] which still supports SOPA.

Re:Not Entirely Withdrawn (5, Insightful)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548298)

Well, of course. They still support it, they just don't want to announce that they support it and all the bad press, gamer retaliatation and vigilante attacks (ie., anonymous) that that implies, so they hide behind an industry trade group.

Re:Not Entirely Withdrawn (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548664)

I think people on the board here wayyy overestimate the importance and relevance of Anonymous. They engender no more sympathy from the general public than the big evil corporations do.

Re:Not Entirely Withdrawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548762)

gamer retaliatation

What, you mean like the retaliation over invasive copy protection? Ha ha ha. Good one. News flash: Despite gamer rage we're still to inserting the disk and facilitating the call home. Go ahead and stick it to the man if you think it helps, but the only way to down the man is to find a bigger man (or gang of men) to pit against it. Boss Google may have a few toothless friends like Mozilla but I fear it won't be enough.

Re:Not Entirely Withdrawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548328)

I'm sure they're not members of the ESA solely because of ESA's stance on SOPA.

Re:Not Entirely Withdrawn (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548426)

Yes, but ultimately this is hardly the only abusive practice that the ESA has supported over the years. They might not be as abusive and generally evil as the BSA, but that doesn't mean that they aren't above tampering with the Wikipedia to deliver their own propaganda.

Re:Not Entirely Withdrawn (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548822)

On the other hand, I presume without some sort of agreement from EA, Sony and Nintendo, that the ESA would not officially be able to support the bill. Those three probably comprise the vast bulk of the power of the ESA. Note that while several music companies are in the list as well, but the RIAA is not.

I would say omission from the list of supporters is a step in the right direction, but actively speaking out against the bill is what would really count. As it stands there is a lot of ambiguity in their position, with a strong lean toward "probably supports it, but less obviously so".

Re:Not Entirely Withdrawn (4, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548330)


The GoDaddy clusterfuck just taught them to not be stupid enough to connect your company name to it directly.

Re:Not Entirely Withdrawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548342)

Except don't they have to be a part of the ESA in order to get their 'voluntary games rating' which basically all of them need if they want their game to end up on store shelves? As such the ESA is one group I would give a pass on being associated with for purposes of this bill (But they should be scrutinized for any public affirmations of support if any were made.)

Concerned Women for America (CWA) (1, Offtopic)

tpotus (1856224) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548198)

That's just about the ass-hattiest name I've ever heard. Was half expecting to see the yes men mentioned in the wikipedia article, but they seem to be for real. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (2)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548354)

According to their website, their goal is to "bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy." Can anyone explain to me which Biblical principle is at stake here?

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548388)

Thou shalt not make copies of things (e.g. movies, music, fish, bread) without first paying.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (3, Funny)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548410)

So JC was a pirate? I knew it! Arrrr!

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (5, Funny)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548674)

You know that "You wouldn't download a car" adage? Well, Jesus would and could.

He distributed illegal copies of bread and fish (see, no theft, just copying) depriving fishermen and bakers of their profits and circumvented DRM to upgrade water to wine bypassing the winery and proper grapes fermentation process.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549122)

How do you know he copied it? Maybe he just created his own, and enjoined in good ol' capitalistic competition.

His supply chain is simply better.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549210)

There was a shortage when he was copying: nobody was selling. That is debatably a different ethical argument than copying when the seller provides abundant supply.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549406)

of course, infinite supply should, with basic economics, bring the price to near-zero.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549842)

There is no infinite supply of the first copy of a work. Without the copyright paradigm, who funds the creation of the first copy?

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (1)

crossconnects (140996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548430)


Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548432)

Well, technically The Bible (most versions) isn't copyrightable due to the sheer age of the publication (it was the very first book off of Gutenberg's first press, FFS).

Maybe they thought SOPA would screw that up in some way?

I'm only half joking, but did want to raise the point that copyright laws have a nasty habit of unintended consequences, and maybe some crafty soul (bless him) scared 'em into thinking that they couldn't copy off and pass around hymns and such anymore.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548442)

This is about that most Christian of virtues, making sure that the rich don't have to earn their money.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549102)

Any women's organization is going to oppose pornography. The less availability of pirated porn to their husbands the more leverage their promises of sex have.

Re:Concerned Women for America (CWA) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548446)

I'm more surprised to see their SOPA support not listed on Wikipedia under "other advocacy". Citation available thanks to

Makes you wonder.... (2)

ACKyushu (1626689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548200)

With all the media coverage over online communities like Reddit and Anonymous threatening companies in a very real way.... Maybe 2012 is the year crowdsourcing rebellion is here to stay? Happy New Year Slashdot!

Re:Makes you wonder.... (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548558)

Please, most people have no clue what Reddit is, what Slashdot is, and they only know of Anonymous because of the Fox11 report. They know of SOPA because there are commercials urging them to support it, but they have no idea what exactly they are supporting, except that they have been told it will "create jobs." There will be no year of crowdsourcing; more likely, 2012 will be another "year that the Internet became less free as corporations found more ways to monetize it."

Re:Makes you wonder.... (1)

ACKyushu (1626689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549214)

I don't know, I find that to be kind of pessimistic. I think those communities, as well as Slashdot do a lot of good when motivated. Reddit does 28 million unique visitors a month and 4chan does roughly ten million. Maybe most people don't visit these sites every day but the people that do seem to be well informed and motivated to change things they disagree with. I think 2011 was a good illustration that change is coming and hopefully 2012 will see more of the same. I find it sort of invigorating to see people doing something for a change.

Where is the list of objectors? (5, Interesting)

wrwetzel (543389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548272)

I suspect that the list of objectors is much longer than that of supporters. It would be good to see that, too. It would be especially good for Congress to see that side-by-side with the list of supporters. Bill

Re:Where is the list of objectors? (5, Informative)

iateyourcookies (1522473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548982)

This (second half) is as close as I have found: [] Permission granted to be amused by the 3rd listed "organization".

Re:Where is the list of objectors? (1)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549244)

If you're not with them, you're against them, right? If you're not a supporter, you must be an objector. So... the objectors are... everyone else? When you look at it that way, three pages is an awfully short list.

Interestingly enough, it's probably more true than we realize. Consider the very small portion of the population that has a fetish for all things scatological. Given the fundamentally repulsive nature of the subject it's reasonable to assume that everyone else objects to all things scatological... even the people who make their living dealing with it and cleaning it up. Which probably explains why EA, Nintendo and Sony withdrew their support. At some point they facepalmed and muttered, "we don't need more of this shit."

There really ought to be an official term for "facepalmed and muttered we don't need more of this shit." There seems to be a lot of it going around these days. SonyPalmed? EAPalmed? VerizonPalmed? HPalmed? Wait, I think that one's trademarked, and well-defended through continued use.

PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548276)

I know we now live in the future and PDFs are amazing but it'd still be nice to get a pdf warning.

Re:PDF (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548338)

You mean like the tag at the end of the link that says ".pdf" every time? Or do you not bother to check links before you click them? And if not, how is that goatse working out for you?

Re:PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548734)

Even better, disable your PDF browser plugins, and make sure it asks you if you want to open or save. Right now, both IE and FireFox save PDFs directly for me without even asking.

I get the media companies, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548284)

Why are FOP and IBEW in there?

The only thing coming to mind are the extra jobs SOPA will create in Law Enforcement due to all the lawsuits.

As for IBEW, I seem to recall something a while back about a guy who wanted to do his own house wiring, and had to pay the local zoning board $$$ to get a copy of the local codes. He was so pissed off, he then made them available on the net (FIDO? - it was some time ago) so nobody else had to pay. Since it was a public ordinance, he thought, it should be made public. I guess the folks who are in a union that wires things up don't take too kindly to some meddling kid.

It makes me ashamed to be in a police family, making a living steering electrons this way and that. {sigh}

Ironically, my captcha word that popped up was "attorney". Shakespeare had it right.

Re:I get the media companies, but... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548454)

Once your remember that FOP is really an acronym for "Fascists Obsessed with Power" you might begin to understand their reasons.

The police themselves are a mixed bag - some great, some terrible, most average people doing their jobs. But the FOP as an organization would just love to don jackboots and force the rest of the population to obey their commands.

Re:I get the media companies, but... (4, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548464)

You have a good point about the IBEW, electrical codes and standards. The code and standards publishing bodies guard their products jealously. And they do chase down people who violate their copyrights aggressively. Sometimes too aggressively, if one assumes 'fair use' and quotes too extensively from their publications.

The NFPA [] , the publisher of various electrical, safety and fire codes also provides training and (at one time, maybe not anymore) offered a code interpretation service (which may have come dangerously close to providing engineering services without a license). As such, they are in direct competition with other training and engineering service providers. Armed with SOPA, they could pretty much shut down any competing services. Or at least drive them off the 'Net. The IEEE [] holds a similar position in that many ordinances simply cite their standards in statutes or regulations and expect anyone having to comply with said regulations to cough up $$$ to obtain a copy.

Obligatory bad car analogy: Think of a world where traffic laws just referred to some AAA [] driving handbook, available only to paying members.

I'm sure that there are many analogous examples in different professions where one quasi-official publisher could effectively control their industry given sufficient ammunition.

Re:I get the media companies, but... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548746)

So? These are independent organizations that have to generate cash to survive. What would you have them do as an alternative?

Re:I get the media companies, but... (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549496)

die off?

List of SOPA Opposers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548296)

Perhaps someone with the proper online profile should start a list of SOPA Opposers. Just pop these guys on there, if they ask to be removed, that will be interesting news. Especially if it's one of those three (it appears .govDaddy now actually opposes SOPA).

Is it me... (5, Interesting)

hilather (1079603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548372)

Or are there only corporations on the list of supporters. Are there no individuals left? Or are they just not worth listing?

Boycott others on list - Start with NFL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548382)

If you are serious about being anti-SOPA - then boycotting the companies giving their support to it would be a start. So instead of watching NFL games or playing your EA/Sony/Nintendo on sunday - go for a hike.

Political (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548394)

As stated, they still support it, just by inclusion in ESA. They are just waiting to come back out of the closet until their latest representatives from the "Mediacratic" Party are re-elected before they have the balls to openly kick their customers in the nutz again.

This may be the way out (4, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548496)

I've been puzzling over the corruption caused by business influence on government for awhile.

Setting it up as a problem in game theory, the tenet "candidate who spends the most money wins the election [] " makes the outcome a foregone conclusion: elected government officials will be in the pocket of corporations, in all cases.

This may be a way out.

We've bemoaned our inability to influence the political system, but here we see a striking example of the population rising up and affecting specific government actions.

Public outcry stopped the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, or at least it helped. Similarly, public outcry attempted to hurt Bank of America and GoDaddy over their political beliefs.

If we can make this work it will give us the fine control over government that we have been missing. We've been able to affect small companies - HBGary [] , Stratfor [] , Ocean Marketing [] , Sony [] . (OK, Sony isn't that small, but it was a slice of Sony much smaller than BOA.)

Future companies may need to think twice before supporting oppressive or corrupt legislation - if only because of the chance that the people will rise up and hurt their bottom line.

We haven't had an effect on the really big companies yet (BOA), but I'm hoping that this grows to be a worldwide trend. We need to install a healthy dose of respect for public opinion. To put it succinctly, the companies have to fear the possibility of public retribution, both legal and extra-legal.

This will give us the power to affect legislation, to control the corruption. This will put government back in the hands of the people.

If we can make this work...

Re:This may be the way out (1, Insightful)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548576)

Setting it up as a problem in game theory, the tenet "candidate who spends the most money wins the election [] " makes the outcome a foregone conclusion: elected government officials will be in the pocket of corporations, in all cases.

Another way to see this is that candidate who raised the most money also had the most number of supporters...

Re:This may be the way out (5, Insightful)

webheaded (997188) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548704)

No...the corporate money completely drowns out any individual contributions. I can damn near guarantee that.

Re:This may be the way out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549832)

No strings attached! This is what needs to happen and that can only happen if no names are attached to political donations.

Re:This may be the way out (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548652)

You're a naive fool. The people behind these companies will simply insist on secrecy. They'll make sure they have ways of supporting legislation without having to risk customer backlash, such as hiding behind industry fronts ("MPAA", "RIAA", "BSA", "SAG", etc) and ensuring that no legislation is enacted which would expose the breadth of their support. They'll make sure they can get both money and 'services' to politicians without the pesky public knowing about it.

That's the real corrupting force, secrecy. Money isn't the root, secrecy is.

Speaking of the US specifically, you also need to get over this notion that there are only two parties and voting for anything else is 'a thrown vote'. I know the two big parties LOVE THAT YOU BElieVE THAT, but please. Vote Pirate. Vote anything other the same old media trained assholes parading around on Fox and friends.

Re:This may be the way out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548766)

Thank you for not writing "tenant". Seeing someone use the right word there is like a Christmas present all in itself! :D

"Support" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548936)

"Support" is a funny word, though. In this case, the people have an actual list of the entire enumerated constituency who is asking for the bill. (Or at least those who are willing to publicly come out.) That's pretty unusual and you normally can't count on that.

To make things work better, "support" needs to be redefined in terms of

  1. Exactly what reps or senators wrote or supports (different definition here; I don't intend recursion) a particular part of a bill, and should include the president if he has signed or says he'll sign it
  2. All campaign contributors to the above list

The idea would to make campaign contributing a risky thing; if you give money to someone, you're taking responsibility for what they do. e.g. Any time Senator Disney does something against the interests of the country, Disney Inc should face immediate financial consequences in the marketplace, rather than people simply bitching about "all those corrupt people in Washington."

Look around and you'll see we already do this for advertising. A TV show does something that religious fundamentalists don't like, and the next thing you know, those people are boycotting the companies that sponsor it. Why can't legislative sponsorship ("this law brought to you by Electronic Arts") be treated like entertainment sponsorship?

For all the talking shit about religion, we could learn a thing or two from it.

(Heh, imagine the PBS of law. "This law made possibly by financial support of people like you." Nah, it'll never happen!)

Re:This may be the way out (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549520)

Public outcry stopped the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, or at least it helped. Similarly, public outcry attempted to hurt Bank of America and GoDaddy over their political beliefs.


We haven't had an effect on the really big companies yet (BOA), but I'm hoping that this grows to be a worldwide trend.

I had the following idea a few days ago, regarding the banking issue, and would like to hang it off your post for the world to perhaps use, or if not at least be entertained by.

The idea stems from fractional reserve banking; the fact that a bank does not have all of the money it would require on-hand if all depositors chose to remove their deposits on the same day.

It also stems from the Occupy movement.

So without further ado: Occupy Bank of America. Open an account, deposit a thousand dollars. Do this over the course of a month or so, get people to get their friends to sign up, etc. On a chosen date, everyone goes to their local bank branch and closes the account, removing all funds as cash.

Please poke holes in this idea? (I'm sure there are many, like, banks have metrics tons of cash on-hand, the 99% doesn't have enough wealth to make this happen, etc...)

Forcing a run on the bank (2)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549828)

Other people have had this idea over the years.

Banks are not required to give out cash immediately. In cases where their fractional reserve is in peril, they can delay payouts for some period of time (IIRC it's on the order of 24-48 hours, but this has probably changed over the years).

They use the extra time to get a large dollop of cash from the nearest federal reserve branch. The system is set up specifically to prevent a run on the bank, which is what you are suggesting.

The best you could hope is for the bank to delay cash payouts to other customers as a result. People might lose confidence in the bank, and people might be inclined to move their money elsewhere. Especially if you could, for example, force a reserve run a couple of times in a one-month period.

I'm not aware of any of these actions being illegal, but you can bet that the establishment will take a very dim view. They will begin by arresting people for trumped up charges (arresting peaceful people in line at the bank for trespassing, or public nuisance), then passing laws which make this behaviour specifically illegal.

Banks would implement a policy that reads something like: "we don't open new accounts for people who have closed all accounts in the last year" or something. But then again - you don't need to actually close the account, just remove a wad of cash on a specific date.

OTOH, it would spread your message to other bank customers. You would get a lot of publicity.

Does anyone know how much cash this would require? Some branches keep as little as $250,000 on hand. That would only be 250 people with some disposable income. If everyone went at 11:00 on a non-payday, everyone from noon onward might be affected.

Success. (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548602)

Earlier in the Corey Doctorow thread I suggested closed platforms are our fault. That perhaps we hadn't made the case well enough.

I think though. We made a victory here.

Scholastic, Inc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38548666)

The firm I buy books from for my daughter, Scholastic, Inc., supports SOPA?!!!

Our turn (0, Offtopic)

bfandreas (603438) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548686)

We pay your welfare, we pay your taxes, we protect your guts, we drive your cabs, we program your iDevices, we prepare our food, we build your homes, we create your creature comforts
We don't buy into your BS. We didn't sign up with you.
We are pushing our 40ies. We read the classics. We have come into our own.
Watch it! Hear us roar!
The hammer fell and the anvil rang. Our turn.

Snowball effect (1)

AragornSonOfArathorn (454526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548880)

Is this the beginning of the end of SOPA? EA, Sony, Nintendo and others pulling support. Maybe the ESA itself will pull support if enough of its members do. I hear Microsoft and other ESA members are pressuring them to abandon SOPA...

Again, how does this matter? (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38548986)

So they withdrew public support and will become private supporters.

The only support that matters to senators is private and the most important to them... money.

The only think that I can think of that might work is an organized group that publicized what politicians supported and stopped a him from being reelected but in a way that they could take credit. A politicians would listen to them then.

In this modern era what I would most want to see is direct democracy. We don't really need senators or representatives except superficially. What would be great is a mixed private vote and a delegated representative(s). That way on certain issues you care about you could directly vote. Maybe even set up a hierarchy of who controls your vote.

where is the list of objectors? (1)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549062)

If the government is publishing the list of supporters, shouldn't they publish the list of people who have objected?

the government site is here: []

perhaps nobody has objected?

Try, try again (4, Interesting)

Ja'Achan (827610) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549068)

That's a lot of bad press everyone is getting. Perhaps they should cancel the proposal, and try again in a few months.

Don't Just Withdraw Support (1)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549326)

Withdrawing support is all fine and good. But companies who don't like SOPA shouldn't just rest at not supporting it. They should be actively against it, and make it clear in public statements, along with why they're against it. Whether they believe in free speech not being infringed (unlikely), don't like that SOPA will break the internet in the long run, or they just say they don't support it because it will cost them money, they need to say so. Any of these reasons are valid, and public awareness would increase.

Nixing support is most likely for the last reason, but this too can show the unaware that SOPA is NOT just about "protecting copyright." It's about incurring real financial costs in order to support the whims of a chosen few. Then it can be further explained that the monetary cost is only the beginning, and that it will be abused to silence dissent in ways that make the DMCA look like a jaywalking fine.

Everyone, not just the techies, needs to be made aware of exactly what SOPA and it's evil twin are, and the threat they represent. If you have non-techie friends, explain it to them in terms they will identify with. Going into all the talk about protocols, blocklists, etc, will probably garner the same reaction it got in the House...i.e. "I don't understand this because I'm not a nerd." But if you show them how it will impact their daily lives, they'll get the picture.

It's a pretty grim picture given that congress doesn't listen to the people they supposedly represent. But if enough of those people start voicing their disagreement with it can still be stopped. That's why the word needs to go out to everyone. Forget Linux on the desktop, make 2012 the year SOPA is buried in a deep-dark hole never to be seen again.

Defeat SOPA (1)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549440)

The only way we as citizens can defeat this crap is to keep up the pressure. Anyone who thinks this is about piracy, is just nuts. It's all about control. Those IN POWER want to shut down the common man, who up til now has had use of the internet free & clear of speech regulations. Hell, about 70% of the stuff on the net, I don't care for. But, I think opinions are needs, even if I don't agree with them. I know a lot on /. aren't from or in America, but there are still a few of us out there that BELIEVE what the first amendment of the U.S. constitution says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What part of MAKE NO LAW do these brain dead morons not understand. They go to congress, and are let in on a little secret club. Laws don't apply to them (such as insider trading). They go there, and in a few short years, making only 175,000 dollars per year, come out MILLIONAIRES. Explain that one.

The usual suspects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549568)

The list contains names of those who have gamed the system. The AA's, book publishers, big pharma and cops. The cops are on the list because it means more business for them (without criminals or even suspected criminals, cops are unemployed: if there are none, then you have to go out and get some or make some). Big Pharma has staged assaults against 'generics', seized publicly funded research (research at publicly funded universities is publicly funded, likewise research at government labs is publicly funded) and converted it into their "IP", and the print/publishing industry has rigged the system through paid lobbyists and paid/bribed elected public officials to effectively tax society for works in effective perpetuity, in contrast to all other works in society which are not taxed in such a manner. The entire "Intellectual Property" industry is corrupt. The Berne convention should be repealed, likewise the WIPO treaty; Patents should be reduced to 20 years, likewise copyrights reduced to 25 years, and non-transferrable (can't sell patents or copyrights), and no option for renewal. Also, failure to capitalize or utilize copyrights/patents within 5 years automatically gets transferred to the public commons. You had an idea. Nice. You get to capitalize on it for one generation (half a working lifetime). After that, other people get to use it freely. No other field of human endeavor is granted 'money for life'. Its inequitable to allow this for one group, and not all.

I've been wondering... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38549590)

Will SOPA affect the usage of the internet for people outside of the USA, but where a recursive DNS query might happen to travel through it (for example, somebody in mexico finding a domain that is based in Canada, or vice versa)?

It's been suggested that people who utilize DNSSEC can simply ignore SOPA, because SOPA explicitly states that nobody is required to make significant changes to their software or facilities to comply with it. Will organizations that use DNSSEC be later dragged into court for "enabling" copyright infringement?

Will SOPA ultimately lead to additional legislation that will require ISP's to prohibit their users from utilizing foreign DNS servers?

Will SOPA ultimately lead to censorship by IP address, when blocking domain names has been shown to be ineffective? And if so, owing to the lack of available IPv4 address space that can potentially make it inconvenient for somebody to bypass such censorship by switching IP's, will this create delays in widespread IPv6 adoption, where the availability of trillions of IP addresses would make it easier to bypass such censorship?

A Game of Cards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549714)

I'll wager the "SOPA-Clients" have only withdrawn, Publicly, whereas as, Privately, their support i.e. money to specific congressman and congressional districts, i.e. Electoral College, for votes, is ... Game On.

Where's the proof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38549738)

EA, Nintendo, Sony Quietly Withdraw SOPA Support? They pay the lobbyist to pay our duly elected officials. What are they going to do ask for a refund? They can have their names struck from the list but that doesn't mean they didn't pony up.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?