Slashdot Mirror


Crowdsourced List of SOPA Supporters

Fraser Cain writes "GoDaddy listened to reason, and reversed their position on SOPA. Here's a crowdsourced list of every other company supporting SOPA with web address, Twitter feed, contact emails and phone numbers. Perhaps they should be contacted to find out if they still fully support SOPA, or have changed their mind."

180 comments

  1. Google Docs? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:Google Docs? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      http://piratenpad.de/c3ADz3hTxY

    4. Re:Google Docs? by Spad · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

    5. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

    6. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    7. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

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

      Html link:

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

    8. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

      I will be adding contact info et al soon.

    9. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also get a sign on page.

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

    10. Re:Google Docs? by koan · · Score: 1

      Or not truly incognito.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    11. Re:Google Docs? by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

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

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    12. Re:Google Docs? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

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

      "I crack me up sometimes" - Maverick

    13. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      No Problem here with or without google

      what amuses me is that the bulk of the names in that list are to all intents and purposes unaffected by SOPA just jumping on the darn bandwagon for the sake of it hoping to score a few brownie points no doubt..

    14. Re:Google Docs? by icebike · · Score: 1

      It is NOT public in incognito at the link posted in the story. Nor in Firefox Private Browsing.

      If it seems so for you, its because you've some how destroyed your incognito window anonymity by logging in somewhere along the line, either in the past, or in the current session.

      This link works in Incognito https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&output=html
      but the story link does not.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    15. Re:Google Docs? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Notice the huge over representation of Photographers in the list.

      I doubt these companies have much of a market cap or are even publicly traded. It seems like some trade association got a ton of them to sign a petition without even considering the impact. They are probably simply Mom and Pop shops that every town has.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    16. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wiki version: boycottcensors.wikia.com
      Unvandalizable blag version: boycottcensors.wordpress.com

    17. Re:Google Docs? by m1xram · · Score: 1

      So we should boycott those companies because they support this new law that doesn't use Due Process. You can accuse websites and have them removed from the DNS. Or, you can post copyrighted material to sites you don't like to take them down. Because of the way the "law" is written, it is an attack mechanism and has nothing to do with piracy. Sounds similar to the Patriot Act in scope. Eventually you'll be able to use The Bill of Rights for toilet paper with laws like these.

    18. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fusk google and their docs

    19. Re:Google Docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

      This one works https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&pli=1#gid=0

  2. why footwear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:why footwear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    2. Re:why footwear? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:why footwear? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:why footwear? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

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

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

    5. Re:why footwear? by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Here we go again!
    6. Re:why footwear? by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Here we go again!
    7. Re:why footwear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

    8. Re:why footwear? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Caterpillar is on the list too. They must have trouble with people pirating their backhoes and bulldozers. That must take a shit-ton of 3D printer feed...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:why footwear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't help but be a little pissed about Harley Davidson. WTF.

    10. Re:why footwear? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      google (tm) "harley davidson t-shirts" and see after the first few pages its all rip-offs.

    11. Re:why footwear? by icebike · · Score: 2

      google (tm) "harley davidson t-shirts" and see after the first few pages its all rip-offs.

      Wow. Bike sales must be tanking if their tee-shirt spin off makes them willing to throw the internet under the bus just for a tee shirt royalty.

      Do these people not understand that free advertising is worth WAY more than they earn from tee shirt sales?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:why footwear? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure H.D. make more on merchandise than they do on bikes.

  3. Listened to reason? by blowdart · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Listened to reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

    2. Re:Listened to reason? by Technician · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

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

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

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    3. Re:Listened to reason? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was even bad publicity. It was the mass exodus of paying customers. My transfer request took almost 12 hours to get through their system when it was suggested it would happen in less than an hour. That tells me they're getting completely slammed with customers walking away from them.

    4. Re:Listened to reason? by Raumkraut · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, SOPA will only apply to non-US-controlled domains; those which ICE et al can't just seize.
      So .com and .net would be safe from SOPA (Verisign is a US company), but others like .org, .se, .uk, .tv would not be so excluded.

    5. Re:Listened to reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understand it, SOPA will only apply to non-US-controlled domains; those which ICE et al can't just seize.
      So .com and .net would be safe from SOPA (Verisign is a US company), but others like .org, .se, .uk, .tv would not be so excluded.

      You may want to take a second look at the bill. While there are references to things like "prevent U.S. support of foreign infringing sites", no provision of the bill actually limits enforcement to "foreign" domains, or excludes US-controlled domains.

    6. Re:Listened to reason? by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, SOPA will only apply to non-US-controlled domains; those which ICE et al can't just seize.
      So .com and .net would be safe from SOPA (Verisign is a US company), but others like .org, .se, .uk, .tv would not be so excluded.

      Ha-ha-ha -ha, Whew that's good. Next you'll say the Patriot Act is about fighting terrorism.

    7. Re:Listened to reason? by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

      This is how dangerous this law is. I could shut down Makezine for copyright violations

      Only if you contributed megabucks to the friends of copyright congressional fund.

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    8. Re:Listened to reason? by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      SOPA works just fine against US sites, mainly because they have been given no immunties. Read SOPA please, it clearly states that its against INTLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATION, and not "FOREIGN SITES WHICH ARE QUESTIONABLE".
      So basically what Technician needs to do is to just send a letter with his statements and perhaps even a comparision to VISA(they lifted X without permission), Paypal, Google and the DNS organisation in charge of .com (since its US based). The companies receiving the letter or email are now in a dire position: They will be taken directly to court if they do not comply, and since the court system is not fixed it will be quite the shame to do so, so they will comply.
      So unless Makezine main funds come via a foreign bank, or a US bank with no Internet page, they are effectivily killed in action.

    9. Re:Listened to reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If GoDaddy has a clause where SOPA wouldn't apply to them, could that be the reason for their involvement? To profit when other domains are closed down?

  4. Re:Who gives a fuck? by AnujMore · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is he not excited about being the first post?

  5. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

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

  6. GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by classzero · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

      That myopic view has never been shared by Go Daddy.

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

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    3. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

      what does it mean?

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

      --
      Yeah, right.
    5. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    6. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

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

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

    8. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

      WIKIPEDIA BOYCOTTS GODADDY,
      LOBBYING AGAINST SOPA,
      PLANS ONLINE PROTEST POTENTIALLY INCLUDING PARTIAL BLACKOUT

      Jimbo Wales:
      I am proud to announce that the Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy.

      Current protest proposal:
      * Triggering event: When SOPA has passed committee and is scheduled for a floor vote in either the House or Senate. The banner runs for the week before the vote, and switches to the blackout on the day before.
              * Scope: Response is geotargeted to United States IP addresses only
              * Duration: Maximum of 7 days for banner component, maximum of 24 hours for blackout component. Blackout is triggered on the business day before the vote. If the vote is on a Monday, blackout runs for 24 hours starting Friday.
              * Action (banner): Banners encourage people to contact their Senators and Representatives (priority given to whichever is urgent, House or Senate).
                          o To the maximum extent possible, readers are given instant information on how they can take action. Campaign is designed to mobilize the public maximally.
                          o The focus is on generating high-value congressional contacts (phone calls and in-person contacts vs letters or emails)
                          o A VOIP-based callback system (such as the one used recently by tumblr) is an option if we can find one that fits our needs and allows us to remain acceptably independent.
                          o Banners operate like the fundraising banners (served via CentralNotice, can be closed per-user, etc).
              * Action (blackout): All requests are answered with a black page. The page is semi-protected Wikitext. Once the page is displayed, a cookie is set which prevents its display again. Exact wording to be decided, but it hits the following points:
                          o SOPA puts Wikipedia, and the rest of the free Internet, at risk
                          o You can help by contacting your representative and senators (with maximally easy help with ways to do that)
                          o A "Learn more about SOPA" link which points to the relevant article on the English Wikipedia
                          o A "Why am I seeing this" link which points to a page detailing the process for reaching this consensus
                          o A link to click through to the originally requested page
                          o "You will only see this page once"

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any link to this?

    10. Re:GoDaddy Still Supports SOPA by Alsee · · Score: 1
      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  7. LVMH by alen · · Score: 2, Funny

    no $1000 handbag for my wife now.

    1. Re:LVMH by halo1982 · · Score: 1

      no $1000 handbag for my wife now.

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

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

    2. Re:LVMH by cynyr · · Score: 1

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

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    3. Re:LVMH by shentino · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:LVMH by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

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

  8. GoDaddy did *not* reverse position by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:GoDaddy did *not* reverse position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

  9. crowdsourced by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:crowdsourced by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

      (Undoing a mod to post this)

    2. Re:crowdsourced by BondGamer · · Score: 1

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

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

    3. Re:crowdsourced by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    4. Re:crowdsourced by tverbeek · · Score: 2

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

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

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:crowdsourced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      You've obviously never lived in South America or Africa, or in the Germany of the 1930s and 1940s. Sure there is the Arab Spring and the Resistance, but asking people to be tortured and killed to prove a point I think is a bit much. Maybe we should try to stop the Bullshit before it goes to far instead of just letting it happen, which is what the moderates did in Germany: appeasement and pandering to the Right Wing of the Nazi movement and the corporations that financially supported and encouraged the Nazis.

      In many places, but especially America, people are all too eager to credit their successes to personal virtue and hard work, and their failures onto other people (foreigners, socialists, black people, poor people...). Yes its true, people don't care until something bad happens to themselves, but the point is that if the "common people" or the "moderates" let things get that bad in the first place, then they have already lost.

      (BTW, whoever modded my earlier post "Troll" should get a sense of humor! There is a big difference between satire and Flamebait!)

    6. Re:crowdsourced by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      This SOPA or a bill like it WILL pass eventually. The sooner the better.

      How's that?
      By the same logic would you also agree that: "You will die eventually anyway. The sooner the better"?

      I certainly wouldn't, but I do enjoy living and would like to continue doing so for as long as that remains true.

    7. Re:crowdsourced by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Didn't this all start when Congress published a list of the SOPA supporters? That's hardly just "anyone".

    8. Re:crowdsourced by FSWKU · · Score: 2

      Actually, it wouldn't be slander at all. That line in Spider Man from Jonah Jameson was actually spot on. "Slander is spoken! In print, it's libel!" It's all defamation, but they're still two legally distinct offenses.

      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
  10. Information Sources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Information Sources? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:Information Sources? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Information Sources? by halo1982 · · Score: 1

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

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

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

  11. Sucks to be an american by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    "Sucks to be an American"

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Sucks to be an american by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2

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

      They will, eventually.

      It sucks to be an American

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

      --
      Yeah, right.
    2. Re:Sucks to be an american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

    3. Re:Sucks to be an american by wbr1 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:Sucks to be an american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you. I can't stand either of those channels; too much propagandizing and lecturing, and not enough news.

      I totally get that your song was a joke. I just don't see SOPA as an "American" thing, even though it's our dopey Congress that's considering it. We created the internet (along with computers, etc. in general) and we have the power to break it with SOPA. And if that happens it will "suck" for everyone in the world, not just for those of us in the USA.

      Keep fighting the good fight, and Merry Christmas! Or whatever you may celebrate at this time of year ;-)

  12. Gaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

    1. Re:Gaming. by TrueSatan · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    2. Re:Gaming. by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Gaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:Gaming. by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 2

      Not just SCE.

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

  13. Autodesk by pieisgood · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

    I would like to hear arguments against this position though.

    Thoughts?

    --
    Eat sleep die
    1. Re:Autodesk by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I would like to hear arguments against this position though.

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

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Autodesk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

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

    3. Re:Autodesk by pieisgood · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Eat sleep die
    4. Re:Autodesk by danfromsb · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:Autodesk by JimCanuck · · Score: 1

      Autodesk gives away free copies to students as mentioned. They support it not because of students but because manufacturers are pirating CAD/CAM software to turn a profit and in all honesty that is just thief. If you make a profit using someone else's product or service you should be required to pay up for it. Also, Autodesk student copies never expire. So its not a "free now pay later".

    6. Re:Autodesk by JimCanuck · · Score: 1

      Can I access the Education Community website even if I am not a student?

      Maybe. To participate in the Autodesk Education Community, you must agree to and comply with the applicable Terms of Use and also satisfy the following eligibility requirements. You must be one of the following: (a) a faculty member; or (b) a student; or (c) an Autodesk Assistance Program participant.

      A faculty member is an employee at a primary or secondary educational institution or any degree-granting or certificate-granting educational institution or any learning, teaching or training facilities and who upon request by Autodesk is able to provide proof of such status.

      A student is an individual enrolled at a recognized degree-granting or certificate-granting educational institution for three (3) or more credit hours in a degree-granting or certificate granting education program or in a nine (9) month or longer certificate program, and upon request by Autodesk is able to provide proof of such enrollment.

      An Autodesk Assistance Program participant is either a veteran or unemployed individual who has previously worked in the architecture, engineering, design or manufacturing industries, completed the online registration for the Autodesk Assistance Program, and upon request by Autodesk is able to provide proof of eligibility for that program.

    7. Re:Autodesk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autodesk has clearly stated on twitter, that they do not support SOPA (in it's current form).

  14. Wait?? by eclectro · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Wait?? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Wait?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Wait?? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Wait?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    5. Re:Wait?? by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    6. Re:Wait?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    7. Re:Wait?? by ELCouz · · Score: 1

      +1 Mod parent up!

    8. Re:Wait?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pigs pretty much always back new laws. New laws, more power, more chances to harass the public. Only ones they'll go against are anti-corruption and public accountability.

  15. Christians are in Favour of SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:Christians are in Favour of SOPA by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:Christians are in Favour of SOPA by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone looking to contact the religious organizations might want to point out that intellectual property did not exist when "thou shalt not steal" was written in stone. Furthermore, a lot has been lost in translation, but it is widely recognized that individual property rights were not the same as they are today and that "stealing" refers to the monopolization of resources that were needed by the group of people as a whole and perceived to be common property. Ie. "thou shalt not claim ownership of the only source of drinkable water in the area and deny it to others'. Viewed from this more accurate interpretation of "thou shalt not steal", intellectual property is "stealing". It is taking something previously thought to be common property and claiming it as your own and using that to exploit other members of the tribe or other tribes.

    3. Re:Christians are in Favour of SOPA by Hentes · · Score: 1

      As it is always with politics, what you see is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm guessing there are some deals in the background, and these organisations will get something in return. Which is exactly the kind of thing that made me a secularist.

    4. Re:Christians are in Favour of SOPA by tqk · · Score: 1

      Supporters.pdf

      I've been wondering about this for a day now. Is there another list posted by Congress listing entities against SOPA? If not, why not?

      Why is the US' Congress taking a side in favour of SOPA before it's even been voted into law? Shouldn't "Congress" (the institution, apart from its members) be impartial, at least until it decides one way or another?

      Stack the deck, anyone?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Christians are in Favour of SOPA by ZephyrQ · · Score: 1

      As it is always with politics, what you see is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm guessing there are some deals in the background, and these organisations will get something in return. Which is exactly the kind of thing that made me a secularist.

      As much as it pains me to say this in defense (I'm against SOPA as much as anyone else here), the Christian businesses listed are doing so for the same reason the **AA and their ilk are--it cuts into their bottom line (from their perspective) Therefore, it is a business decision, not a religious/theological one.

      Please keep in mind that most (if not all) "Christian" businesses are primarily that--a business. Just because it calls itself Christian doesn't make it much different than any other business (as I'm sure anyone who has worked for a "Christian" business will attest).

      So don't blame being a secularist on Christian business' decision to follow the business crowd. Believe me, those businesses will get hurt more if SOPA passes than most.

    6. Re:Christians are in Favour of SOPA by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Just because someone thinks piracy is wrong, doesn't mean that they'd support the DMCA or SOPA.

  16. I'm not by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    1. Re:I'm not by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      students aren't going to drop three grand for software

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

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:I'm not by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      And LT is a 2D cad.

      You want CAD that will read .dwg files?

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

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:I'm not by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 2

      I would throw in DoubleCAD as well. I use it constantly at work and it's really quite good. It isn't on Mac or Linux though. I'll have to check out Draftsight though!

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    4. Re:I'm not by JimCanuck · · Score: 1

      http://students.autodesk.com

      All of their software for FREE for students. Do you just want to bash them for fun, or are you just a idiot?

    5. Re:I'm not by cynyr · · Score: 1

      They do have a scaled down version, Autocad LT. Granted it is still around $500-$800 for a license and you loose LISP support, but it sure does beat the $1500 for the full version.

      I think some of you are underestimating how much a CAD package costs. I'm ignoring MAYA/3dsMAX etc as I only have experiance with the CAD side of autodesk. The reason business happily pays $1500 a seat is that the CAD guys need something that works, that can then be sent to the CNC machine, automatically version-ed, and stored in a central repo (see autodesk vault). The cost of CAD for a year is nothing compaired to the work they put out in a year or just the cost of having them sit in the chair. Heck the cost of a modern workstation video card is on par with most of these CAD packages.

      If you think autocad is expensive, you should go look up the cost on Pro-Engineer with all the option boxes checked, or SolidWorks with all the addons.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    6. Re:I'm not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, ALL Autodesk software is available to students for FREE: www.autodesk.com/education

      The only limits are a watermark so that professionals don't just "borrow" their college kid's version and start billing out work.

      Additionally, Carl Bass, Autodesk CEO announced via Twitter: "the list is BS. I know Autodesk doesn't support #SOPA"

      http://bit.ly/ruETHU

      Come on, before you tee off, at least do a LITTLE homework.

  17. Xerox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Xerox by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    2. Re:Xerox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:Xerox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      They just need to implement generic marking for copyrighted material.

    4. Re:Xerox by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

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

  18. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    Too obvious

    0/10

    --
    Yeah, right.
  19. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

  20. Link in summary is blotched; here's the one by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&pref=2

    The actual link was part of the parameters to the Google account login link that appears in the summary.

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  21. STOP SOCIALISM AND SUPPORT SOPA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:STOP SOCIALISM AND SUPPORT SOPA! by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Funny

      But Jesus was a pirate. He copied that fish and bread. When you ask yourself what Jesus would do, the answer is clearly 'pirate it and share with others.'

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:STOP SOCIALISM AND SUPPORT SOPA! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      some prophet! the fish and bread tasted of toner. blech! ...and next time, never mind about the myhrr.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  22. Godaddy PR Dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  23. Re:Who gives a fuck? by f3rret · · Score: 1

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

    No, he's trolling.

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  24. Re:Who gives a fuck? by LifesABeach · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

  25. Ford should not be on that list ... by JimCanuck · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:Ford should not be on that list ... by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      That sounds exactly like GoDaddy's official position.

    2. Re:Ford should not be on that list ... by JimCanuck · · Score: 1

      Ford has never said they supported SOPA officially or otherwise unlike GoDaddy, and instead has always said we need technological freedoms. While at the same time its understandable that they'd support IP protection as all companies operate on the need of having IP to keep them competitive.

      Remember the bail outs? Ford went to the hearings on behalf of GM and Chrysler, not for them to get a bail out, instead they were the only company not only turning a profit but paying down over 19 billion dollars of debt. There line of "innovation to flourish" has always been a core value, even if it means propping up a competitor who is on their knees.

  26. Re:Who gives a fuck? by koan · · Score: 2

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

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  27. My personal opinion by koan · · Score: 0

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

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

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:My personal opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

      Apropriate capcha: wakeup

    2. Re:My personal opinion by tqk · · Score: 1

      ... it's OK to report on what's happening with SOPA. but linking to a list for response to SOPA and encouraging members to get active against it is political ...

      I beg to differ. SOPA's proponents started it.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:My personal opinion by koan · · Score: 1

      Yes "they started it" doesn't mean /. has to become actively involved, passive involvement via educational articles and reasonable discussion is preferred as it has become clear these are powerful and unethical people, not the kind of people you want working against you.

      I would prefer /. survive and live a longtime, not go out in a blaze of glory waving the angry flag.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  28. Free speech doesn't apply to SOPA supporters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Free speech doesn't apply to SOPA supporters. by Georules · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Free speech doesn't apply to SOPA supporters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you support SOPA, you will have your business destroyed.

      Hopefully.

      Kind of funny that, in the interest of preserving free speech, people are taking such an anti-free speech approach to ensure it.

      Just how is a bunch of nerds contacting SOPA supporters saying "if you support this legislation, I won't do business with you" anti-free speech?

  29. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  30. Evidence? by qtp · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

    --
    Read, L
    1. Re:Evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I added a number of sources (submissions to the Committee on the Judiciary, transcripts from the 16 Nov hearing).

      I'd suggest others add a source too when updating the list.

  31. Already been contacted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, I like the entries in the list with notations of "already been contacted". WTF?!?

  32. Surprised to see a few folks on there... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    Three that seemed odd to me were Taylor Guitars, Monster Cable and Peavey. Unless knockoffs are a big problem for Taylor, I see little direct benefit for being on the list. As for Monster, they're overpriced and suck compared to Mogami (hell, they suck compared to drawing my own wire from a metal bar) so I don't think anyone's copying them. And Peavey's stuff sounds so bad, no one would want to copy them.

    I guess they all think that if they support this bill the entertainment industry will thrive and lure in evermore aspiring artists who buy their products. This is very sad, because the likelihood that these companies will benefit from this are very, very small.

    --
    That is all.
  33. What Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bullshit lopsided list if ever there was one.

  34. Wanted: List of companies AGAINST SOPA by DodgeRules · · Score: 2

    While this list is a good start to see which companies to avoid doing business with, I would like to see a list of companies that are vocal about being against SOPA so that I can direct my spending dollars towards them. If a lot of people shifted their spending dollars towards those companies against SOPA, maybe the loss of income may change the pro-SOPA mentality.

  35. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Makes perfect sense. Businesses, who as we all know are the epitome of ethics, can be trusted to do the Right Thing(tm). Whereas Joe Q. Public is only one step away from smoking pot, kissing a member of his own sex, downloading Britney Spears and buying a fake Rolex, and needs to be held in line with threats, teargas and the promise of an eternity in hell for his sins.

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  36. Marmot does not support SOPA, nor to others listed by JDS13 · · Score: 1

    Judging by Marmot's public statement on this - http://marmot.com/content/sopa - many of the companies on this list do not support SOPA specifically but merely took a public stance in favor of some protection for intellectual property rights (which surely we all support).

  37. They haven't actually dropped support by cc.kynv · · Score: 1

    GoDaddy "renouncing" its support is nothing short of a lie. They may have announced that they don't support the bill anymore, but they will just continue to support the bill in a more-discreet manner. Assuming for even a moment that just because they say that they've dropped their support means that they've actually dropped support is naive.

  38. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the mean time, have fun fucking artists who actually produce while you piss and moan about it.

    Are you being paid or something? The only people I know of who fuck artists are record labels. File-sharing is beneficial to artists.

  39. SOPA Supporters Document by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just made the document available for edit to everyone.

    The reason why it was asking for a login is that we had some troll deleting all the entries this morning.
    I apologize for that.

  40. Re:Marmot does not support SOPA, nor to others lis by tqk · · Score: 1

    ... many of the companies on this list do not support SOPA specifically but merely took a public stance in favor of some protection for intellectual property rights (which surely we all support).

    As currently practiced, no we don't all support IP rights. I tend towards boycotting anyone who does. If you can't make a living by giving your customers better products or services than your competitors, you deserve to lose.

    FWIW, I've never even been to The Pirate Bay nor do I "pirate" anything in any other way. I seriously do resent what the legal profession has been doing with IP lately.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  41. DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Applied DNA sciences... for real? Man and I wanted to pirate the DNA of Justin Bieber

  42. Vibram by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps someone can help with this.

    I've seen Vibram on a large number of these lists, but have been unable to find an actual citation for them supporting SOPA. I could really use it as I would like to send it to a barefooting blog. If they really are supporting SOPA, which seems likely given how they are a minor patent troll, their customers need to know.

  43. If SOPA passes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wouldn't the best response be to file SOPA complaints against this list, and the lawmakers who voted for it? many would be clueless enough to not get a reply together in time and be blown off the net, credit processing frozen, etc.

  44. Verifiable Sources?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a column for verifiable sources that has one entry for GoDaddy. All other entries should be removed.

  45. LLPs removed and BigPharma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else notice that ALL of the Law Firms and LLPs have recently been been removed from this list? Why is that?

    Also, why on earth are BigPharma companies on this list (Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline etc. ???

    Are people somehow downloading their medication from a server in China?

  46. Suckers by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Godaddy didn't listen to anything but the sound of people beating a path to their competitors, and if you think they've reversed their stance I have some beautiful waterfront property to sell you.

  47. Re:It is promoting some kind of growth... by dyingtolive · · Score: 0

    Most fucked up haiku evah!

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  48. Dollar General?? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    I understand why quite a few companies are on the list, but Dollar General? Why? Really?

  49. GoDaddy continues supporting SOPA by Weezul · · Score: 4, Informative

    GoDaddy has NOT withdrawn its official congressional support for SOPA

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  50. GoDaddy continues supporting SOPA by Weezul · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  51. Re:Who gives a fuck? by m1xram · · Score: 1

    According to the law it is about taking out websites you don't like. That is how it is implemented. Post somebody's copyrighted material on the site you don't like and then take it out. Or, just make the accusation, which is good enough to remove them from DNS, at least temporarily. No Due Process needed.

  52. Re:Who gives a fuck? by aurizon · · Score: 2

    With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous poem, First they came..., his cry of protest against those Germans who did nothing to stop the Nazi rise to power, and who stood by as the Nazis purged group after group of "undesirables" in their country.
    http://webweaversworld.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-they-came-for-jews-variations-on.html

    When SOPA came for the ISPs,
    I remained silent;
    after all I was not an ISP.

    When SOPA locked up the all the routers,
    I remained silent;
    after all I did not have a router.

    When they came for the movie uploaders,
    I did not speak out;
    after all I was not an uploader.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

  53. Knock-offs by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1
    I think a lot of companies have been lulled into the (becoming outmoded) notion that this legislation is all about protecting their physical products from being copied and flooding the market with knock-offs that devalue their precious originals (hence the inclusion of the Rolex, Este Lauder etc. on the list). What is wrong with this notion is that the person who wants that 'premium' brand has enough money to pay for it, and those that don't have that kind of money and want to feel like they do will buy the knock-off. Everyone should be happy with that. No lost sales in this equation.

    What is a real issue - from my limited knowledge and understanding is that the long history of 'knock-offs' is being conflated and equated with file sharing, which is just plain incorrect, no matter how you look at it. You surely, in logical terms, can't have legislation that equates physical goods with infinitely reproducable files.

    A film or a song is not a handbag or watch and there should never, ever be any legislation that postulates that they are somehow equal in value. It just defies the most basic logic.

    I can't think of anything else to say except that SOPA is just terribly wrong. WRONG!

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
    1. Re:Knock-offs by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      I meant to say, a film file or a song file. No intention of demeaning the creativity or inherent cultural value of any of the items mentioned.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  54. Robocall the supporters by shimane · · Score: 1

    #godaddy shmodaddy ! Want to really get your voice heard against #SOPA? Robocall 81 supporters here > http://www.reverserobocall.com/products/sopa-hr-3261-proponents-88-offices

  55. Twitter List by edrftr · · Score: 1

    I have also ported most of this list to a twitter list @edrftr

  56. GoDaddy's Motivation? by HArchH · · Score: 1

    It occurs to me that GoDaddy has an obvious financial interest in supporting SOPA (until the uproar threatened to paint them as an undesirable vendor). If I have a domain and that domain is seized by the government as the RIAA's or MPAA's request, then I need a new domain. Where do I go to procure that new domain name? (In the interest of full disclosure I have at least one domain name purchased from GoDaddy, but no other interest in the company. (Though Danica Patrick is pretty hot.))

  57. SOPA has an Evil Twin, S. 968 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I looked up H.R.3261in Thomas.gov and found two related Senate Bills, 968 and 1228. S. 1228 is aimed at counterfeit military goods and services but referenced in both of the other two bills.

    S. 968 or PROTECT IP act:
    S. 968 is so similar to 3261 that one could say it shares authorship by those promoting it behind the scenes. It also, like H.R. 3261, contains a myriad list of means and methods to shut down not only the material but references to it by prohibiting "advertising" of the information. It also provides numerous immunities to the people who do the actual shut down or request it. If this bill was coauthored by Goebbels and Himmler, it wouldn't surprise me. Strange Bedfellows: This bill is cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Feinstein, McCain, and Hatch out of the listed 40 cosponsors. As a Utahn, I've already asked Senator Hatch and he affirmed his support.

  58. Re:Who gives a fuck? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I am hoping that history doesn't rhyme.