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!

SOPA Makes Strange Bedfellows

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the and-they-keep-stealing-the-covers dept.

Censorship 439

davide marney writes "What do 1-800-Contacts, Adidas, Americans for Tax Reform, Comcast, the Country Music Association, Estee Lauder, Ford, Nike and Xerox all have in common? According to OpenCongress.org, they all have specifically endorsed H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. A total of 158 corporations have signed up in favor of the bill, and only 87 against. $21 Million has been donated to Congressmen who favor the bill, but only $5 Million to those against. Thanks to OpenCongress for these insights. This goes a long way towards explaining why this bill has so much traction, despite all its negative publicity."

cancel ×

439 comments

Money. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629332)

And nothing more.

Re:Money. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629668)

Negative publicity.. where? You mean a few pathetic campaigns online?
Almost nobody that can affect the outcome of this will even see those.

Weird money (5, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629746)

Just look at these amounts :

Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $3,502,624
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $2,648,770
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $2,080,651

I wonder how much Obama got ... in the beginning of an election year no less. What do you think Obama > Harry Reid or the reverse ?

Weird, weird names on the list though :

* United States Tennis Association
* Council of state governments
* National Confectioners Association
* Major City Chiefs
* Let Freedom Ring
* Outdoor Industry Association
* Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council
* Eli Lilly and Company
* Center for Individual Freedom
* Concerned Women for America
* Americans for Tax Reform
* Society of Plastics Industry
* Beam Global Spirits &Wine

Half of these sound extremely fake. Most of these look like it's VERY unlikely they would get themselves on this list if it didn't gain them money ...

Not that I tell myself these guys collectively contributed even 1% of those amounts ... very strange names here. Were the pressured into signing this ? There's another collection of names that clearly were pressured to get in there (National Electrical Manufacturers Association
, Electronic Components Industry Association) ... are these names just an attempt to point "broad support" or ? Weird weird weird.

Interesting though : all but one electronics manufacturers are in the opposing category ... /me suspects threats from customers. All think tanks, democrat or republican, are on the opposing side. So clearly both parties are aware of the publicity loss. Lots of the organisations supporting this bill are subsidiaries of other supporters (so the supporter list shoulds be a LOT shorter). WTF is visa doing supporting these guys ?

Some organisations could have contributed more by staying out of it, me thinks :
* 4chan
* Torrentfreak
* Tumblr
(let's just say people might think they know why these guys are opposed, and it's not for the right reasons)

And, surprisingly in the "opposing" category (although I must admit this legislation doesn't strike me as conservative, and it doesn't seem like it's supported by the software industry either, it's almost purely privilege grab by the entertainment industry) :
* Business Software Alliance (also known as Microsoft)
* Brookings Institute
* Competitive Enterprise Institute

Re:Weird money (1)

geniice (1336589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629778)

When you consider the importance of sports TV rights and how badly they risk getting mangled online the appearance of the United States Tennis Association is understandable.

Re:Weird money (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629818)

Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $3,502,624
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $2,648,770
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $2,080,651

I wonder how much Obama got ...

Hmmm... you don't mention of the republicans on the list (John Beohner, Eric Cantor, Scott Brown, Robert Portman, Patrick Toomey, Mark Kirk) and you bring up Obama, who is not on the list. Thank you for clearly identifying your ideological slant.

Re:Money. (2)

cjcela (1539859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629752)

It is not only money. There is something else that is remarkable. Our elected officials listen more to their 'friends' that to the people who vote them in power. And we seem to be complacent with this. Somehow we have to find a way in the US to held individuals working for the government accountable for their actions, if we want the land of the free to be so for our children.

Re:Money. (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629868)

Money is what votes politicians in power. Sheep that enter votes will obey their media masters. Money buys media masters.

Re:Money. (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629886)

That's because politicians quit answering to voters once they are elected.

If congress critters were subject to recall like their local and state counterparts you'd see a LOT more responsiveness.

In the regular 9 to 5 world us working class folks live in, your boss actually gets to fire you if you screw up.

Re:Money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629838)

What it needs is everyone to go on-line and download stuff, ALL at the same time. Let them take everyone to gaol.

Stand up, people! (5, Informative)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629338)

Write to your senators, your representatives! Tell them you oppose this bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3261&position=oppose [opencongress.org]

Tell your family, friends, even the guy at the gas station to do the same!

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our position clear to elected officials!

Re:Stand up, people! (5, Insightful)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629374)

Write to your senators, your representatives! Tell them you oppose this bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3261&position=oppose [opencongress.org]

Tell your family, friends, even the guy at the gas station to do the same!

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our position clear to elected officials!

Be sure to include a check for at least $10,000.

Re:Stand up, people! (5, Informative)

todrules (882424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629764)

I already did. Here's the response I got back. Looks like Senator Isakson is already bought and paid for. I'll definitely vote for whoever runs against him in the next election, though.

Thank you for contacting me regarding intellectual property theft. I appreciate hearing from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

S.968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011, was introduced by Senator Leahy (D-VT) on May 12, 2011, and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On May 26, 2011, it was reported out of Committee and is currently pending in the Senate. The bill targets websites, particularly those registered outside of the United States, which are "dedicated to infringing activities." These rogue websites typically offer unauthorized downloading or streaming of copyrighted content or the sale of counterfeit goods including music, movies, and pharmaceutical drugs.

Websites targeted by this bill are foreign owned and outside the reach of U.S. laws despite the fact U.S. intellectual property is being infringed upon and U.S. consumers are the targets. Rogue websites cost American workers jobs and cost businesses millions of dollars in lost revenue. As online technology and commerce advances, we must see to it that injured parties have the ability to stop infringers from profiting from counterfeit products. For example, a victim of infringement will have the authority to file a civil action against the owner or registrant of a rogue site. If an order is granted by the court, third parties will be required to stop processing payments from the infringing sites, therefore, preventing infringers from collecting payments. I will work to ensure that our laws our modernized to protect intellectual property, and will keep your thoughts on this bill in mind should it come before the Senate for a vote.

Re:Stand up, people! (4, Insightful)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629822)

I'll definitely vote for whoever runs against him in the next election, though.

Don't forget to vote in the primary as well. Knocking a candidate out in the primary can mean that you can play party politics as usual in the general. In Washington state now, the general isn't even a two-party election, it's a runoff from the top two vote getters in the primary.

Re:Stand up, people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629382)

My Senators sit in 2nd and 3rd place on the top recipents.

Re:Stand up, people! (3, Informative)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629800)

Yeah, imagine that. The top states that are supporting this :
* New York (2x)
* Nevada
* California
* Massachusetts

And the top counties :
* Richmond, Virginia
* Los Angeles, California (ie. Silicon Valley) (TWICE)
* Washington environs, Maryland
* Charleston, South Carolina
* Boston, Masachusetts

Hey those are the guys who voted in the major SOPA supporters. Representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people ... well in theory anyway.

Really sad that the opposition couldn't even take Los Angeles.

Re:Stand up, people! (4, Informative)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629882)

And the top counties :

* Los Angeles, California (ie. Silicon Valley) (TWICE)

Hey those are the guys who voted in the major SOPA supporters. Representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people ... well in theory anyway.

Really sad that the opposition couldn't even take Los Angeles.

errr. Silicon valley is not in Los Angeles, Hollywood is. Hollywood's support for this bill makes sense, silicon valley's does not.

Re:Stand up, people! (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629438)

This bill WILL get passed regardless of whether we make our position clear to elected officials!

FTFY. When congressmen will not even listen to expert testimony on these matters, what makes you think they will listen to their constituents?

Re:Stand up, people! (2)

Paladeen (8688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629500)

Their chances of re-election don't hinge on the experts, but if enough of their constituents kick up a fuss, they might think twice.

Or maybe I'm just being hopelessly optimistic.

Re:Stand up, people! (3, Insightful)

DougBTX (1260312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629540)

Their reelection depends on having funds to mount a reelection campaign, hence the $10,000.

Re:Stand up, people! (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629640)

You are being hopelessly optimistic. Not only do most people not care at all about SOPA, even if they did care they would forget about it by the time election season rolled around. Politicians know this, and that is why the DMCA was passed, the Mickey Mouse bill was passed, the PATRIOT act, etc. That is why I have little hope for SOPA or PIPA being defeated; I wrote to my representatives in the House and the Senate, and I have told everyone I know that these bills are bad and why they are bad, but I doubt there will be much of an effect.

Ten years from now, when the Internet has been conquered by old media interests and there are toll booths and walls everywhere, people will start to get annoyed -- and by then, it will be too late. People are annoyed by the DMCA now, but there is little hope of getting it overturned. SOPA will be no different.

Re:Stand up, people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629680)

How well armed and willing to take drastic action are their constituents? Until the answer to both questions is "very", they won't.

Re:Stand up, people! (4, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629814)

So rather, make it known that you will boycott products from SOPA supporters, who can tell congressmen what to vote for. Someone developped a nifty app for that :

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/o78co/my_friend_and_i_wrote_an_application_to_boycott/ [reddit.com]

Re:Stand up, people! (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629444)

Don't you mean 'write a check' instead? Money talks, Anything else is ignored.

Go after the companies (5, Insightful)

krelvin (771644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629460)

Go after the companies that are supporting the bill as well. Look what happened to GoDaddy when it was found out they were supporting it. Imagine what happens when companies like 1800contacts, Ford, Adidas and others start getting consumers telling them to drop support as well or lose business.

Business funds Congress... if they start saying no, Congress will say no too.

Re:Go after the companies (4, Funny)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629568)

So you're saying we have to lobby companies who would in turn lobby congress? Democracy at its best!

Re:Go after the companies (4, Interesting)

mcavic (2007672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629726)

Absolutely. With Corporate America supporting SOPA by a vote of 158 to 87, I wouldn't blame Congress for passing it. Who's right, Corporate America, or you and I? I don't know, but I know who has more lobbying power, and it ain't me.

Re:Go after the companies (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629660)

I can indeed imagine: nothing. GoDaddy got shafted because it was a business that dealt largely with IT professionals; companies like Ford and Adidas don't have customer bases that are anywhere near similar in overall composition. We need to face the facts and deal with the core problem: the Internet's interests will continue getting shafted as long as it lacks the financial backing of those who seek to destroy it. Hopefully, the blackout protest will turn a couple of eyes... but you kinda have to wonder if maybe it's time to break net neutrality and start a war.

Re:Stand up, people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629486)

Lol thats cute. You still think congress gives a shit about the common person.

Sample letter (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629504)

You need to put it into terms they'll understand:

The Honorable [congresscritter]:

I see you are supporting SOPA. If I may, let me clarify some issues that will change your mind about your support.

For one, online piracy is all done by the Somalis. They have not gone online and don't plan to: there are no ships online and they can't put them online. There hasn't been any ship hijackings online and as you know, pirating a ship with ones computer is ludicrous.Ships don't travel on the internet! They can't get into the tubes!

Secondly, I really don't like making accusations, but the folks who are behind this bill have been lying to you. They have ulterior motives and will make a fool of you.

Yours,

A tech savvy constituent.

Re:Sample letter (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629704)

The Honorable [congresscritter]:

There was a time when that greeting might have been true. However it now seems that the majority of politicians are there for what they can get out of it for their own personal benefit rather than the benefit of those who they claim to serve. This is, in part, why little has been done to prosecute those who caused huge financial destruction to the world in recent times -- they just keep the donations (== bribes) flowing to ensure that the politicos remember on which side their bread is buttered.

Re:Stand up, people! (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629546)

on the one hand they got ``$21 Million has been donated to Congressmen who favor the bill,'' on the other your letter. Hmm... whom would they listen...

Re:Stand up, people! (2)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629884)

The correct statement is, "I have prepared a campaign platform and a war chest with the intent to run against you and unseat you during the primary if you are stupid enough to vote for this bill."

Re:Stand up, people! (4, Insightful)

Raisey-raison (850922) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629556)

What I find interesting is that it's never mentioned much in the mainstream media. It's not mentioned in the presidential debates. And I don't understand why unions, Americans for Tax reform and builders associations support it. Our current extreme IP inhibits economic growth (which is why tax reforms should be against it) and helps to bolster income inequality (which is why unions and builders associations should oppose it).

I understand that this this is the ONE issue that CNN, MSNBC and FOX all agree on. Because they all are part of media companies that want ever stronger IP to bolster their profits. The whole subject is censored.

So many of my so called 'informed' friends aren't aware of it and they say IP is boring. My god - what are we to do!

Re:Stand up, people! (5, Interesting)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629728)

PBS might also support it. Last month, the News Hour ran a story on piracy [pbs.org] . They interviewed two "opposing" parties, the Open Internet Coalition and the MPAA, whose only difference was how much copying should be regulated: a lot, or a lot more. That was the most biased, unbalanced, and stupidly wrong coverage I'd ever seen from PBS. I thought they were a cut above the rest of the mainstream media. They weren't, not that time.

Why? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629732)

The reason its not being discussed is that they want this to pass without the general public hearing about it.

Why is that? Aside from the supposed 'IP protection' it helps squelch our right of free speech, which most of those entities are in support of, as THEY want the free speech, but not us.

Re:Stand up, people! (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629738)

I don't understand why unions...support it

"It protects American jobs!"

AFL-CIO is a political organization; sometimes they do things that legitimately help the working class, other times they do things that they can claim help the working class. SOPA is squarely in the second category: labor organizations can point to it and say, "We are helping protect your job by supporting this legislation!"

Our current extreme [copyright/trademark/patent/trade secrets enforcement regime] inhibits economic growth

Only over the long term. In the short term, the fat cats get to report big profits and continue to buy yachts and mansions. Over the long term, consumers are forced to wait longer for new products and technologies, pay more for existing products and technologies, and forced to turn over their own profits to the entrenched businesses and trolls. Eventually the rest of the world will start ignoring American demands about trademarks and copyrights, and then the system's hollow core will be exposed and the fat cats will abandon ship and leave the rest of us to our fate.

When the design of a logo or the composition of a soft drink is considered to be a major economic issue, you know the system is destined to fail. We still have a chance to turn things around...but not with the current set of politicians.

Re:Stand up, people! (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629558)

You could send a million letters. If the guy is recieving a million $$ in "donations", he ain't gonna listen to you any time this year.

Re:Stand up, people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629794)

Can't, and won't. Would that it were otherwise.

[tangent alert]

You must have been addressing American citizens with your comment. I'm a Canadian citizen on an H-1B, working through the glacially slow multi-year process of (hopefully, eventually) getting my American citizenship.

Trying to act like an American citizen is tantamount to misrepresenting myself. Road to hell paved with good deeds, and all that.

So, good luck with that. I'll be one of the few on the sidelines with a bucket of popcorn, expressing muted shouts of restrained enthusiasm for your efforts.

Get over it (-1)

jodido (1052890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629342)

Get over the idea that Congress does what it does because members get more or less "campaign donations." They do what they do because they believe in their system (it's called capitalism). If they got no salary, and no "campaign donations" either, they'd vote exactly the same way.

Re:Get over it (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629360)

If they got no salary, and no "campaign donations" either, they'd vote exactly the same way.

Stop it, you're killing me.

Re:Get over it (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629470)

Except that taking payments for endorsements is illegal. "Capitalism" in this manner does not apply to congressional votes. ( or at least shouldn't, in a perfect world ).

Do something (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629362)

VPNs are not a viable alternative but there are other technologies that can help. Write one-click installers for darknets, p2p networks, distributed DNS systems. Seriously, technology cannot solve social problems but at least can alleviate them. SOPA will come, so it's time to act now.

Re:Do something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629408)

Couldn't agree more!
The best thing that can come out of this is a corpocracy proof internet!

Re:Do something (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629524)

In reality none of those are viable long term options either. Since the ISPs ( which are also content providers ) support this they will just take the next logical step, if these alternatives becomes common place, and ratchet down your "open" bandwidth to the point that you cant afford to do anything.

Buying content from their servers will of cousre not count against your measly cap.

The only true solution will be point-to-point community networks. ( mainly neighborhood wifi mesh )Get rid, and get around, the need for a link to the 'public internet' except for perhaps your online banking and buying stuff from amazon.

Who all here remembers BBSs and FidoNet?

Thanks for the list of companies to boycott! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629366)

I would say that not one of these companies have read this piece of $hit legislation. It is scary how stupid people can be. People who are supposed to be leading the country.

It's O.K, m00ts on the case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629368)

Apparently, 4chan oppose SOPA. That'll be sure to stop it in it's legislative tracks.

I guess I don't understand... (3, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629380)

...what non-information companies have to gain by this bill. Ford is limited to intellectual property related to their physical products, and only could really deal with software piracy for ECM and BCM computers which are limited to use in Ford products anyway. Nike could face a competitor stealing their product designs which would be easier to make than Ford's, but still would fall into industrial espionage rather than casual piracy, and Estee Lauder makes cosmetics and other products that again, aren't exactly end-consumer-piratable...

I wonder if it's a bigger deal that these companies are supporting Congressmen who are passionate about this bill, and this is just another way of helping to keep these Congressmen in their pockets.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (3, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629412)

Have you ever gone to Chinatown and seen all the "fake" handbags (it is hard to call them "fake" when they are probably produced by the same people who make "genuine" handbags)? Online, there are plenty of websites that will sell you a bag or a shoe that looks just like an expensive brand for a fraction of the cost. SOPA is meant to block access to such websites, which are often hosted offshore where US law enforcement agencies cannot touch them.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (2)

edalytical (671270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629604)

Exactly counterfeit goods are a big deal for companies and consumers. There is a need to prevent these counterfeiters from tricking consumers, but SOPA is not the solution. Just do a google search for "cheap uggs" the first result is a warning from UGG Australia about counterfeiters and the second result is a counterfeiter selling "fake" uggs. Unfortunately this does need to be stopped! However, I can't think of a way that would not compromise the Internet and civil liberties, etc.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629698)

Why are counterfeit sneakers a big deal for consumers?

Re:I guess I don't understand... (5, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629796)

On the one hand, I can see the point of view of the designers who are annoyed about the counterfeiting of their product.

On the other hand, what does it say about the actual value of their designs? It says that people are not willing to pay the prices they demand for the somewhat ephemeral value that their design commands.

It used to be that artisans had makers marks because their product was of superior quality and they wished to differentiate it. People seeing the superior quality of the product and desiring that quality for themselves would see the makers mark and know where they could get an item of similar quality.

Quality is no longer the differentiation though - price is. The relationship has inverted ; a maker no longer puts their mark on something to identify the maker of the product and generate sales, he puts the mark on to increase the perceived value of the product. As some people are no doubt pointing out - a lot of the so-called "counterfeit" product is made on the same production line, from the same materials, by the same workers using the same amount of labour.

There is no difference in the intrinsic value of the product - it's the same material object with the same properties - so why can Loius Vuitton sell it for more than Mr Chang? Because Loius Vuitton inflates the perception of value of their products in ways that have nothing to do with their actual utility - they put them in a swanky shop with a flunky on the door, they don't pile them high, and they don't sell them cheap.

The real counterfeit is therefore the perceived value of the "genuine" product - people are buying fake value. This is not an artisan product made by a skilled craftsman. This is a product designed to be made as piecework in a third world sweatshop - a product that by definition, has to be makable by the lowest common denominator of skill.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629662)

I don't have mod points, but that's a great point. Thanks.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629448)

I used to work for Ford, they have a ton of other software that they wrote that could be useful for others. During the 1990s they had their own satellite network called FordStar that connected all the dealerships in North America to various facilities in Dearborn, MI and used custom software for diagnostics. I got to play with a very early version of wireless ethernet during that time.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629494)

Look at it this way: All creditcard companies and banks have a webpage.
By effect that means that if you ask them to block something under SOPA, you basically ask for them to do a complete block of all products of that company. And since all transfers is done via the web anyhow, you have just killed all their economical support.
So basically the reason they want to support SOPA is because that gives them more rights to deal with other companies, at every level but what is being sold in the store if its not imported.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629522)

Ford doesn't want China to be able to build fake Fords.

Estee Lauder doesn't want China to make fake stinks (AKA perfumes) and war paints (AKA makeup).

Re:I guess I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629544)

Look beyond what the paper says. Right now "online piracy" is interpreted in a way, but when the law is applied it can be interpreted in a very large number of ways. Just like the patents, they might have sounded good to the lawmakers of their time, but nowadays, they're something completely different.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629602)

It is a wide swathe of industries. My guess is that the physical products companies are worried about branding - hit products from Nike, and luxury goods from the likes of Rolex and Chanel are routinely knocked off in the Far East, complete with logo and high quality materials and finish. These companies want to ensure they'll have Congressional support when they ask for bills in the future to combat knockoffs.

I have no idea why auto repair has lined up pro-SOPA, though.

Re:I guess I don't understand... (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629616)

Look, am a guy who supports SOPA, okay? Problem is, SOPA ain't very popular. I only have a couple of bro congressmen in my pocket. So I need "popular" friends to support it, okay? But hey wait! That guy, Nike, is quite popular, he's like the richest kid in the rich folks, you know? I will ask him to support my SOPA soap, and in exchange, I give him some "donations", so that he will make some "donations". Oh and when later he needs support for some cool idea of his that will probably end up being unpopular (say, cutting chinese hands that make bad not-Nike shoes), me and my bro congressmen will support him all the way.

Smells like profit, man.

Comcast? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629466)

Another tech company? Where's the boycott against them like the one against GoDaddy?

Don't tell me, "Comcast is the only provider" wherever you are. Dialup and satellite are available most everywhere, even if Comcast has their government-granted cable monopoly in your area.

Re:Comcast? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629508)

They own NBC now, don't they?

Re:Comcast? (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629534)

And millions of geeks observe their heads explode as they realize the companies opposing this bill include:

* AOL
* Facebook
* Microsoft
* Zynga

Re:Comcast? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629658)

If you use any of those, you're not a true geek anyway. :-)

Re:Comcast? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629552)

I thought we were already boycotting Comcast for the way they interfered with BitTorrent traffic?

Really though, with the coming of 700MHz unlicensed networks and the widespread availability of 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz equipment, people could create WISP coops if they really wanted to. Unless you live somewhere really isolated, you could probably find enough people in your area willing to split the cost of a T3 line and some directional antennas and routers.

Of course, that means talking to your neighbors, getting organized, and dealing with the inevitable lawsuits from companies like Comcast.

Re:Comcast? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629710)

Ya, we can. Until we get sued by comcast/at&T/whowever, then they buy laws to prohibit it.

Re:Comcast? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629852)

I thought we were already boycotting Comcast for the way they interfered with BitTorrent traffic?

I have been, at least. But an awful lot of people around here seem to treat Comcast like they do the big media corporations: Oh, we hate them for their "IP" lobbying but we'll still slurp up all the content they produce! Wasn't that new movie great!?

Re:Comcast? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629594)

When you are a virtual monopoly in a particular area, its sort of hard to boycott them even if you think there are other non-viable alternatives.

Re:Comcast? (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629654)

Agreed.

It'd be like saying you're going to boycott the federal government. The only way you can do it is to move to a different country.

Re:Comcast? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629810)

No it doesn't; boycotting simply means not giving them any more money.

I've been doing that for years.

Re:Comcast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629600)

Comcast is the only provider in my area. I don't have a phone line at all so no dial-up or DSL, and satellite is far too slow. I plan to switch eventually when another provider with respectable speeds enters the market.

It's no surprise they are supporting it given their relationship to Universal and NBC.

Re:Comcast? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629620)

If it makes you feel better, I think I almost made the Comcast salesmen cry when they showed up the other day trying to get me to switch away from RCN... Their cockiness visibly went up in smoke as I started listing grievances against Comcast (bandwidth caps, net neutrality issues, speed, etc). They seemed almost annoyed that it REALLY didn't make sense for them to become RCN subscribers only because their Comcast service is free.

Anyway, you wanna really hit Comcast, sure, you CAN point out satellite and dialup to folks in the middle of nowhere, but its hard to take that kind of thing all that seriously given the difference in service levels (it's just a sacrifice people aren't willing to make without a bigger reason and an achievable end in sight...the latter more important generally than the former). Best of making the push in the cities, where there are often 3 main competitors for broadband: Verizon (lol), Comcast, and RCN. Verizon engages in union busting lobbying for anti-net-neutrality measures, etc etc etc...no brainer to point out. Comcast...yea. The issue is, most people don't seem to realize that there IS a company like RCN which has 0 bandwidth caps, no history of filtering or other net neutrality issues, and offers great speeds at often cheaper prices than competition. Oh, and I left out AT&T...but hopefully, so does everyone else when shopping for Internet.

Re:Comcast? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629690)

Dialup and satellite are not suitable substitutes for most people. Dropping an order of magnitude, or two, of bandwidth is going to be a tough sell to geeks. GoDaddy was comparatively painless to give up, in most cases people who made the switch had only the pain of the switch, and then get to live with a better provider forever after.

Re:Comcast? (1)

quickgold192 (1014925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629708)

I'd take you more seriously if you ditched your cable for dialup on principle.

Can comcast use the SOPA on dish / directv? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629714)

And tell them if you don't remove the line saying better then Comcast we will use this law to shut down your web site?

If Comcast was will to pull the VS BS when they pulled it from directv also later on they sued DirecTV over NFL Sunday ticket ads while at the same time running ad's saying most live sports on comcast (not true) and running ad's say no long term contracts (not fully true) . How far will they go?

The money totals are BS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629476)

It looks like dozens of entire industries support SOPA, while opponents include Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, stag tech CEOs like Zuckerburg and Newmark, and a whole bunch of bloggers.

This list seems to total the contributions that anyone in either list made to Congresspeople during the period in question. Since there are many more supporters who have lobbying budgets (for many and diverse legislation), naturally pro-SOPA will come out ahead in the numbers. Doesn't mean that all or even most of the lobbying $$$ were about SOPA. On the opposing side, they probably aren't counting contributions made by employees of Facebook, eBay, craigslist, Twitter, Linkedin, HuffPo, etc, except for the chiefs named on the list, so that seems a bit biased too.

Government is for SOPA (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629506)

Government is automatically for SOPA, there is nothing more pleasing to the ears of the little power and money hungry dictators that you have 'elected' to be your government officials.

Here is a test for you, "progressive" liberals out there, will Obama VETO SOPA and PIPA?

Dream on. He signed the NDAA a week ago, with military style indefinite detention against US citizens, which you really should understand as martial law and concentration camp powers in the hand of the POTUS, this or future.

Re:Government is for SOPA (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629582)

What does the Democrat party have to do with progressive liberalism? When last I checked, they were just as pro-business as the Republican party, only they favor a different set of businesses (but not entirely disjoint).

Re:Government is for SOPA (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629606)

You may be correct, but like most Fox News watchers, you're missing the point. Specifically:

1. Obama is a corporate friendly statist with the very occasional progressive idea or two. Portraying him as a liberal or a progressive is very much a "please don't throw me in he briar patch" trick conservatives like to use.

2. There's always this implication that somehow having a true believer whackjob conservative in there will make things better, despite extreme amounts of recent history that say otherwise.

So, if you want to say that liberals and progressives should be disappointed with Obama, go right ahead. His problem is that he's not what we want him to be, and he's not what you fear either.

A true liberal would never go for this crap. Post-Reagan conservatives with their unquestioning military and cop worshipping seem to want to give law enforcement anything and everything they want, so they're no help either. A true conservative would never go for this crap either, what few are left, so what does this say about our alleged "leadership" these days?

Re:Government is for SOPA (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629718)

No, Obama won't. But Romney won't either, so this one isn't a reason to switch.

Re:Government is for SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629828)

From everything we've seen he won't, but the power of election year means it could be jusT the power play he needs.

Comcast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629560)

Do we have enough Comcast subscribers here to all call them up at once one day and complain? Maybe threaten to cancel our accounts and switch to another provider?

$26M, politicians will learn from this (2)

The Creator (4611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629564)

They will learn to propose ridiculous bills more often.

I dont get... (3, Interesting)

IronHalik (1568993) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629580)

...the american system.

How is it possible, that you can publicly 'donate' money to a representative supporting your cause. IMHO political offices should be state funded.

Re:I dont get... (0)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629610)

This is not how it is supposed to work, but anytime you involve politicians they will abuse/bend/break the rules for their own gain.

This is not exclusive to America, as politicians everywhere are like this.

Re:I dont get... (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629772)

Yep, fundamental human nature. Humans seek self-advantage. Politics has a tendency to create opportunities for advantage, and advantage seekers will find those opportunities.

Re:I dont get... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629612)

That's commie talk.

Yanks would rather be corrupt then commie.

Business Software Alliance.... (4, Insightful)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629592)

You know when *they* are anti-SOPA, there's something wrong with it...

158? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629626)

The number is inflated; the Big 3 Record Labels have put many of their smaller labels on the list as well.

Let's ignore the various publishers and the Big Brands on the list.
Let's also ignore all the law enforcement organizations on the list for now.

National Center for Victims of Crime
That should be an easy target... we're all victims of crime perpetrated by quite a lot of organizations on that list: murder of the Public Domain. So why are they there?

Americans for Tax Reform
Sure... the Big Content and friends pay sooooo much tax, Hollywood Accounting is just to rip off the "percentage of profits" people, not the IRS.

Let Freedom Ring
Eh? What definition of "Freedom" do these guys use?

Center for Individual Freedom
Same as those guys?

Associated Builders and Contractors
Oh no... is that little shed out there a genuine Joe Fart Contractors, Inc. or is it some Chinese rip-off?!

United States Conference of Mayors
Call the Mayor's office if you live in a city/town of pop. 30,000 or more and ask if the Mayor supports SOPA

Come on... (3, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629636)

All those people that were berating others for supporting (or even just not caring about) the GoDaddy debacle, come out in force and NOW follow your own advice.

You should now throw away anything you wear that has Adidas or Nike on it, cut your Comcast connections, stop listening to country music (okay, no great loss there), take all the Estee Lauder gear back that you bought your girlfriend for Christmas, sell any Ford you might have, start returning your photocopiers, etc.

No? Or is it actually not that important compared to moving a couple of domains around? Boycotts like that were stupid for one reason - you didn't know WHO supported it because many companies have kept absolutely silent about their stance and almost every company would have an opinion on it. Surprise, surprise a profit-making business supports the option that makes the most profit for them.

As I said back then: You have zero idea what political agenda any company is secretly supporting or not.

If you want to boycott, then you can't selectively boycott. And then you will realise that virtually all profit-making companies would support something that you would want to boycott (unless you were a shareholder).

Re:Come on... (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629888)

You should now throw away anything you wear that has Adidas or Nike on it, cut your Comcast connections, stop listening to country music (okay, no great loss there), take all the Estee Lauder gear back that you bought your girlfriend for Christmas, sell any Ford you might have, start returning your photocopiers, etc.

Actually, I am not terribly far from that:

  1. Shoes are a bit tough, it is not very easy to find off-brand shoes. I can make the pledge now, however: when my current pair of boots needs replacing, I will find a pair made by a small, local business.
  2. My landlord provided service through Comcast until recently...because Comcast cut off our service. I have been working on setting up a wireless connection to the nearby university campus (I work there, so that helps), at which point my landlord agree to cut the rent in exchange for my use of that connection (as it turns out, this is a hard thing to do -- I am working on an agreement with some neighbors to put a repeater on their roof).
  3. I have not listened to mainstream music in many years, and I never listen to music recorded by an RIAA company.
  4. I would not spend the money on brand name cosmetics and my girlfriends both knows and supports that position.
  5. I do not drive a car (I know this is not going to work for most people and I would not expect them to follow suit).
  6. I only use photocopiers/printers on rare occasions and only those provided by my employer. Who spends time and money printing things on paper, except as required by their employer?

If you want to boycott, then you can't selectively boycott. And then you will realise that virtually all profit-making companies would support something that you would want to boycott

Which is why, when possible, I try not to buy things made by megacorp. Living one's life in the modern world makes it pretty hard to avoid megacorp entirely, but one can reduce their dependence on megacorp to some degree without too much pain.

Sony Music also (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629696)

Sony systems were deeply hacked several times last year, through obvious methods (eg SQL injection) that show how seriously the company takes computer matters. Not surprised they endorse SOPA.

It's Opposite Day! (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629880)

You'll always be right if you automatically believe and do the exact opposite of Sony.

Seriously, I'd be convinced even if the Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, and the entire cast of Firefly were all on the sponsor list. Sony likes that shit? Vote No!

Data is from MapLight and OpenSecrets.org (1)

stoub (473163) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629740)

At the bottom of this and all other "Money Trail" pages on OpenCongress, there's a note explaining that OpenCongress aggregates this data from other sources:

            Data on bill support and opposition provided by MapLight.
            Campaign contribution data provided by OpenSecrets.org, the nonpartisan guide to money in politics. Contribution data is constantly being updated and this data may not be entirely up to date.

Why doesn't Congress sell laws ? (1)

BlueTak (1218450) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629744)

At least that would be honest, because, seen from France, that's the way things look : auction for a law. (I dont't say this would never happen here, but corporations rather buy presidents... who launch dirty "3 strikes" crap)

Google don't support it. (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629750)

Therefore, let it pass, and then let them wonder why "Estee Lauder" no longer features prominently in Google search results.

The ones not asked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629762)

Interesting, how the only ones not asked and not being icluded anyway in this count, are the actual people of the country.

Many people of the USA: Awesome nice people that I like.
Most people of the USA: Retarded passive rotten vegetables consuming and excreting mindlessly until the land beneath them is dead and scorched.
The USA: Infected by a virus, turned into a zombie, controlled by industrial feudalisms with so hearts, long-term thinking, or common sense, raping and pillaging everything it can get its claws on. (I'm really truly sorry, but the name "USA" is now tainted forever. :/)

Guys, just fuckin' get out of there while you still can!
We'll send our versions of this over there, and you come here (with all nukes! ^^), and we nuke their place from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Donation or corruption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629776)

So let me get this straight...people and companies OPENLY give money to those FOR the policies they are for, and it's called a donation?
I think you'll find that's the textbook definition of a bribe.

Looks like . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629782)

2012 will be the end of the internet as we know it. Money triumphs over freedom every time.

I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629806)

"5 million donated against" - but Facebook Google etc in talks to black out their front page? Surely $5m is like less than a couple of days gross revenue, why wouldn't they have already donated much more against?

Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38629844)

No I have to stop shopping at Walmart.

1-800 Contacts? Really? (1)

mmalove (919245) | more than 2 years ago | (#38629864)

Well, I literally just wrote them to tell them to remove me from their mailing list, and will be purchasing contacts elsewhere. I'm sure I confused the crap outta whoever gets that web case, as they probably have no frickin clue what a SOPA is, but I'm pissed about SOPA and our bought Congress waltzing it right through, and I'm happy to boycott everyone I can that made it possible.

(Can't drop Time Warner, as they're the ONLY cable internet provider here, but I did send them an email expressing my dissent.)

I hope my fellow slashdotters are as diligent about getting off their duff and contacting some of these people. But either way, at least I won't be further financially supporting the demise of my rights, so long as I can help it.

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...