Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Companies Who Support Censoring the Internet

Posted by samzenpus on from the list-you-don't-want-to-be-on dept.

RichiH writes "From Techdirt: 'A group of companies sent a letter to to Attorney General Eric Holder and ICE boss John Morton (with cc's to VP Joe Biden, Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, IP Czar Victoria Espinel, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. John Conyers, Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley), supporting the continued seizure of domain names they don't like, as well as the new COICA censorship bill, despite the serious Constitutional questions raised about how such seizures violate due process and free speech principles.' A full list of companies who you might want to avoid buying from is included, as well."

11 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Wall Street rules by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diversified investment portfolios make boycotts virtually worthless.

    Looks at list... Oh yeah, we're gonna stop these guys.. Hope and Change, right?

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Wall Street rules by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...vote for liberals...

      I'll have to conscript one. There are no liberals volunteering to serve. A lot of posers, but nothing realistic. And anybody who actually wants the job is probably unfit. It's better to reign in their authority no matter who we vote for. They have way too much power.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  2. The list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nike - Beaverton, OR
    Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
    Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN
    NBC Universal - New York, NY
    Viacom - New York, NY
    Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
    Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
    Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA
    Activision - Santa Monica, CA
    Adidas Group - Portland, OR
    Xerox - Norwalk, CT
    Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX
    Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL
    Coty Inc. - New York, NY
    EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH
    Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA
    PING - Phoenix, AZ
    Louis Vuitton - New York, NY
    D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY
    Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
    Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY
    Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX
    Beam Global - Deerfield, IL
    Chanel USA - New York, NY
    True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA
    Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA
    Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
    National Basketball Association - New York, NY
    National Football League - New York, NY
    The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA
    Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX
    Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY
    Timberland - Stratham, NH
    Major League Baseball - New York, NY
    Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA
    Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
    Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA
    Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA
    Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA
    Burberry Limited - New York, NY
    Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN
    The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA
    Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR

    1. Re:The list by the_womble · · Score: 5, Funny

      The bits get stuck if the copper does not point the right way. Low quality cables also cause bits to degrade which means that they will obviously not sound the same as the near perfect bits that have passed though Monster cables.

      Nine out of ten Monster customers confirm that good cables sound better than cheap cables.

      The other 10% confirm that bits are happier travelling through Monster cables and they are therefore more ethically acceptable.

      Please note that if you are reading this over anything other than an audiophile quality ethernet cable you will not be able to understand it properly and will therefore think its all nonsense. Please try a better quality cable to understand properly.

    2. Re:The list by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Are you sure about that?

      Viacom == CBS, Comedy Central (Colbert/Daily Show), BET, The CW, MTV, Showtime, many radio stations, last.cm, CNET, download.com, gameFAQs, GameSpot, Metacritic, techrepublic, tv.com, ZDNet, Simon & Schuster, Westinghouse, etc.

      NBC Universal == General Electric, Comcast, NBC, USA network, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, Weather Channel, AT&T, Hulu, Vivendi, MCA, SyFy, Universal Music, Biography channel, National Geographic channel, A&E, Tivo, many radio/tv stations, etc.

      Not to mention the many other subsidiaries of the companies and branches listed above. And that's just two companies. Chances are good that you'll buy something (or many things) in the next year that benefit Nike or Adidas or Activision, but are under brands and subsidiaries that we aren't familiar with.

      It is extremely difficult to actually boycott a corporation these days. Hell, if you decided to boycott Proctor & Gamble, you'd probably never be able to buy a single thing for the rest of your life.

    3. Re:The list by bzipitidoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, boycotts are mostly unworkable.

      Don't merely deny yourself to deny them. Take your business to the competition. A problem with that is, sometimes there isn't any competition. Lack of competition, and the ongoing efforts to eliminate competition, are the biggest problems capitalism faces.

      Lawsuits and court cases are a lot of effort, and may fail. And are reactionary besides. Go on the offensive. Proposing alternative laws may be better. How about a constitutional amendment? A "Free Sharing" amendment, sort of like Free Speech. If it gained traction, would solve a lot of these issues. They'd be scared silly by the prospect of such an amendment actually becoming law. It would shift the debate, and they'd be too busy fighting to hang on to their intellectual monopolies to have the energy to keep up this continual testing of the waters to see how much censorship they can get away with.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  3. Xerox? by phiz187 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really Xerox? After all of the legal drama you've gone through, as publishers tried to hold YOU contributorily responsible for copyright infringement committed by your users?!

    --
    Pretend I said something meaningful or insightful here.
  4. The new aristocracy by Datamonstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't stop until there is a class of people who can do whatever they please, and another class of low-lifes (us) that must be subject to their power, for their their (our) own good.

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  5. Re:D'Addario by douglips · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ernie Ball also went totally Microsoft free after the BSA screwed them for $100,000:
    http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

    --
    My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
  6. Add: National Association of Realtors by Larisa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They should add the National Association of Realtors to that list. They may not have signed the letter in fact, but they apparently support censorship in principle and action. The 800-lb legal gorilla of the NAR jumped on my own back, only yesterday. I set up a site for an audio drama I recently produced -- a fun little ghost-story for geeks, which happens to lampoon the Realtors and high-tech CEOs of Silicon Valley, whom we all love to hate. My URL corresponds to the Title of that fictional story, "The Realtor and the CEO" (http://www.realtorandceo.com). They decided that they did not like my using the word realtor as part of a literary title, and are now trying to coerce me into giving up the URL, the Title of the audio drama, and any reference to realtors in the story -- which happens to require eliminating or completely rewriting a main character. Seems First Amendment rights mean nothing, if you do not have a $100,000 war chest.

  7. Re:D'Addario by scdeimos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nike can jam it, AFAIC, but if you read the comments attached to TFA you might have seen this comment from Jim D'Addario...

    Jim D'Addario, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 6:10am

    You really should visit and talk to some companies that are living this experience. There is no way to file a legal law suit in every instance someone is stealing my D'Addario Strings trademark. We are family owned business in the USA with sales of $150 million. Sounds big, and rich and all that!!! However last year we spent $750,000 on legal battles and got nowhere. We would be bankrupt trying to protect the 1000 jobs that we provide here in the USA. We are not General Motors, IBM or NIke. The scale is not there.

    If we were allowed legitimate access to the Chinese market and the Chinese were not counterfeiting our product we would be able to create 200 to 500 more jobs in the USA.

    Don't paint everyone with a broad stroke of the brush. Telling the companies on the list to work harder is an insult. We work as hard as we possibly can already (its 5:30 AM where i am right now and dont stop working until 6:30 PM.

    I have personally visited stores in four Chinese cities to see 7 out of 10 sets of my brand of strings are fake. The packaging is perfect, right down to the American flat and the words "Printed and Made in USA". The strings are shxt.

    I wonder how that would make you feel if you started a brand name from nothing in 1974 and built it to the largest in the world only to watch people completely rip it off.

    So your suggestioin to me is to work harder and sue everyone? I may as well close up or cash out and watch the 1000 jobs evaporate. Or better, maybe i should move the factory to China and destroy another 1000 US jobs?

    Go on Alibaba.com and witness the hundreds of thousands of fake product listings. There is nothing on the site that is real or legitimate. At some point the government has to take some kind of police action. This is not just a civil matter, there are criminal (grand larceny) implications here.

    I agree there should be due process before a site is shut down. I dont know what that process should be, but when threre is clear evidence submitted to a government agency that a site is selling fake merchandise the government should have some authority to put a URL on hold until they can defend themselves. Let the theives absorb the burden of defending themselves, don't expect the legitimate folks to foot the bill.

    How is possible for the public to ask the legitimate manufacturers to bear the role of the government and police every instance of fraud with a law suit? It would be tens of millions of $$$ a year.

    Learn more before developing such strong views and 'black listing' good people.

    Jim D'Addario - CEO D'Addario and Company