Slashdot Mirror
EA, Nintendo, Sony Quietly Withdraw SOPA Support
wbr1 writes "Electronista reports that Sony, Nintendo, and Electronic Arts have all pulled their support for SOPA, but have not issued any statements as to why. The house.gov list of SOPA supporters is here."
There's no way to know if this influenced it but Anonymous threatened Sony on Youtube (transcript here and a few more specifics here) the other day. Of course, even if that did influence Sony I'm sure the last thing you'd want is to send Anonymous the message that they can push you around so don't bother waiting for admission/explanation.
...
Looking at this list, there's far better targets of groups of lawyers and lobbyists that don't do a goddamn thing or sell any tangible product. Not sure why those wouldn't be prioritized by Anonymous but, well, that's crowdsourcing for you. Maybe they identified Sony as the biggest fish that would disrupt the highest number of placated sheep who might actually contact their senator when their opiate flow is disturbed? Nahhhh
My work here is dung.
Because Nintendo, Sony, and EA are members of the ESA, and the ESA supports SOPA, means that Nintedo, Sony, and EA support SOPA!
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
"EA, Nintendo, Sony Quietly Withdraw SOPA Support"
If it was quiet, they still support it. They just don't want to lose as many customers.
They have only reduced their support, rather than fully withdrawn it.
According to Destructoid they are still members of The ESA which still supports SOPA.
That's just about the ass-hattiest name I've ever heard. Was half expecting to see the yes men mentioned in the wikipedia article, but they seem to be for real. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.
With all the media coverage over online communities like Reddit and Anonymous threatening companies in a very real way.... Maybe 2012 is the year crowdsourcing rebellion is here to stay? Happy New Year Slashdot!
I suspect that the list of objectors is much longer than that of supporters. It would be good to see that, too. It would be especially good for Congress to see that side-by-side with the list of supporters. Bill
I know we now live in the future and PDFs are amazing but it'd still be nice to get a pdf warning.
Why are FOP and IBEW in there?
The only thing coming to mind are the extra jobs SOPA will create in Law Enforcement due to all the lawsuits.
As for IBEW, I seem to recall something a while back about a guy who wanted to do his own house wiring, and had to pay the local zoning board $$$ to get a copy of the local codes. He was so pissed off, he then made them available on the net (FIDO? - it was some time ago) so nobody else had to pay. Since it was a public ordinance, he thought, it should be made public. I guess the folks who are in a union that wires things up don't take too kindly to some meddling kid.
It makes me ashamed to be in a police family, making a living steering electrons this way and that. {sigh}
Ironically, my captcha word that popped up was "attorney". Shakespeare had it right.
Perhaps someone with the proper online profile should start a list of SOPA Opposers. Just pop these guys on there, if they ask to be removed, that will be interesting news. Especially if it's one of those three (it appears .govDaddy now actually opposes SOPA).
Or are there only corporations on the list of supporters. Are there no individuals left? Or are they just not worth listing?
If you are serious about being anti-SOPA - then boycotting the companies giving their support to it would be a start. So instead of watching NFL games or playing your EA/Sony/Nintendo on sunday - go for a hike.
As stated, they still support it, just by inclusion in ESA. They are just waiting to come back out of the closet until their latest representatives from the "Mediacratic" Party are re-elected before they have the balls to openly kick their customers in the nutz again.
I've been puzzling over the corruption caused by business influence on government for awhile.
Setting it up as a problem in game theory, the tenet "candidate who spends the most money wins the election" makes the outcome a foregone conclusion: elected government officials will be in the pocket of corporations, in all cases.
This may be a way out.
We've bemoaned our inability to influence the political system, but here we see a striking example of the population rising up and affecting specific government actions.
Public outcry stopped the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, or at least it helped. Similarly, public outcry attempted to hurt Bank of America and GoDaddy over their political beliefs.
If we can make this work it will give us the fine control over government that we have been missing. We've been able to affect small companies - HBGary, Stratfor, Ocean Marketing, Sony. (OK, Sony isn't that small, but it was a slice of Sony much smaller than BOA.)
Future companies may need to think twice before supporting oppressive or corrupt legislation - if only because of the chance that the people will rise up and hurt their bottom line.
We haven't had an effect on the really big companies yet (BOA), but I'm hoping that this grows to be a worldwide trend. We need to install a healthy dose of respect for public opinion. To put it succinctly, the companies have to fear the possibility of public retribution, both legal and extra-legal.
This will give us the power to affect legislation, to control the corruption. This will put government back in the hands of the people.
If we can make this work...
Earlier in the Corey Doctorow thread I suggested closed platforms are our fault. That perhaps we hadn't made the case well enough.
I think though. We made a victory here.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The firm I buy books from for my daughter, Scholastic, Inc., supports SOPA?!!!
We pay your welfare, we pay your taxes, we protect your guts, we drive your cabs, we program your iDevices, we prepare our food, we build your homes, we create your creature comforts
We don't buy into your BS. We didn't sign up with you.
We are pushing our 40ies. We read the classics. We have come into our own.
Watch it! Hear us roar!
The hammer fell and the anvil rang. Our turn.
20 minutes into the future
If SOPA passes, one of the first things that will happen, is that the businesses who support it and stores that sell their products, will be among the first domains taken away in accordance with the law.
SOPA is the "hydrogen bomb" of censorship, and MAD is its solution.
Is this the beginning of the end of SOPA? EA, Sony, Nintendo and others pulling support. Maybe the ESA itself will pull support if enough of its members do. I hear Microsoft and other ESA members are pressuring them to abandon SOPA...
sudo eat my shorts
"Support" is a funny word, though. In this case, the people have an actual list of the entire enumerated constituency who is asking for the bill. (Or at least those who are willing to publicly come out.) That's pretty unusual and you normally can't count on that.
To make things work better, "support" needs to be redefined in terms of
The idea would to make campaign contributing a risky thing; if you give money to someone, you're taking responsibility for what they do. e.g. Any time Senator Disney does something against the interests of the country, Disney Inc should face immediate financial consequences in the marketplace, rather than people simply bitching about "all those corrupt people in Washington."
Look around and you'll see we already do this for advertising. A TV show does something that religious fundamentalists don't like, and the next thing you know, those people are boycotting the companies that sponsor it. Why can't legislative sponsorship ("this law brought to you by Electronic Arts") be treated like entertainment sponsorship?
For all the talking shit about religion, we could learn a thing or two from it.
(Heh, imagine the PBS of law. "This law made possibly by financial support of people like you." Nah, it'll never happen!)
So they withdrew public support and will become private supporters.
The only support that matters to senators is private and the most important to them... money.
The only think that I can think of that might work is an organized group that publicized what politicians supported and stopped a him from being reelected but in a way that they could take credit. A politicians would listen to them then.
In this modern era what I would most want to see is direct democracy. We don't really need senators or representatives except superficially. What would be great is a mixed private vote and a delegated representative(s). That way on certain issues you care about you could directly vote. Maybe even set up a hierarchy of who controls your vote.
If the government is publishing the list of supporters, shouldn't they publish the list of people who have objected?
the government site is here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html
perhaps nobody has objected?
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
That's a lot of bad press everyone is getting. Perhaps they should cancel the proposal, and try again in a few months.
Verizon recently backpedaled on the 2.00 online bill paying fee.
Silence is a state of mime.
Withdrawing support is all fine and good. But companies who don't like SOPA shouldn't just rest at not supporting it. They should be actively against it, and make it clear in public statements, along with why they're against it. Whether they believe in free speech not being infringed (unlikely), don't like that SOPA will break the internet in the long run, or they just say they don't support it because it will cost them money, they need to say so. Any of these reasons are valid, and public awareness would increase.
Nixing support is most likely for the last reason, but this too can show the unaware that SOPA is NOT just about "protecting copyright." It's about incurring real financial costs in order to support the whims of a chosen few. Then it can be further explained that the monetary cost is only the beginning, and that it will be abused to silence dissent in ways that make the DMCA look like a jaywalking fine.
Everyone, not just the techies, needs to be made aware of exactly what SOPA and it's evil twin are, and the threat they represent. If you have non-techie friends, explain it to them in terms they will identify with. Going into all the talk about protocols, blocklists, etc, will probably garner the same reaction it got in the House...i.e. "I don't understand this because I'm not a nerd." But if you show them how it will impact their daily lives, they'll get the picture.
It's a pretty grim picture given that congress doesn't listen to the people they supposedly represent. But if enough of those people start voicing their disagreement with it can still be stopped. That's why the word needs to go out to everyone. Forget Linux on the desktop, make 2012 the year SOPA is buried in a deep-dark hole never to be seen again.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
The only way we as citizens can defeat this crap is to keep up the pressure. Anyone who thinks this is about piracy, is just nuts. It's all about control. Those IN POWER want to shut down the common man, who up til now has had use of the internet free & clear of speech regulations. Hell, about 70% of the stuff on the net, I don't care for. But, I think opinions are needs, even if I don't agree with them. I know a lot on /. aren't from or in America, but there are still a few of us
out there that BELIEVE what the first amendment of the U.S. constitution says.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What part of MAKE NO LAW do these brain dead morons not understand.
They go to congress, and are let in on a little secret club. Laws don't apply to them (such as insider trading).
They go there, and in a few short years, making only 175,000 dollars per year, come out MILLIONAIRES.
Explain that one.
The list contains names of those who have gamed the system. The AA's, book publishers, big pharma and cops. The cops are on the list because it means more business for them (without criminals or even suspected criminals, cops are unemployed: if there are none, then you have to go out and get some or make some). Big Pharma has staged assaults against 'generics', seized publicly funded research (research at publicly funded universities is publicly funded, likewise research at government labs is publicly funded) and converted it into their "IP", and the print/publishing industry has rigged the system through paid lobbyists and paid/bribed elected public officials to effectively tax society for works in effective perpetuity, in contrast to all other works in society which are not taxed in such a manner. The entire "Intellectual Property" industry is corrupt. The Berne convention should be repealed, likewise the WIPO treaty; Patents should be reduced to 20 years, likewise copyrights reduced to 25 years, and non-transferrable (can't sell patents or copyrights), and no option for renewal. Also, failure to capitalize or utilize copyrights/patents within 5 years automatically gets transferred to the public commons. You had an idea. Nice. You get to capitalize on it for one generation (half a working lifetime). After that, other people get to use it freely. No other field of human endeavor is granted 'money for life'. Its inequitable to allow this for one group, and not all.
Will SOPA affect the usage of the internet for people outside of the USA, but where a recursive DNS query might happen to travel through it (for example, somebody in mexico finding a domain that is based in Canada, or vice versa)?
It's been suggested that people who utilize DNSSEC can simply ignore SOPA, because SOPA explicitly states that nobody is required to make significant changes to their software or facilities to comply with it. Will organizations that use DNSSEC be later dragged into court for "enabling" copyright infringement?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to additional legislation that will require ISP's to prohibit their users from utilizing foreign DNS servers?
Will SOPA ultimately lead to censorship by IP address, when blocking domain names has been shown to be ineffective? And if so, owing to the lack of available IPv4 address space that can potentially make it inconvenient for somebody to bypass such censorship by switching IP's, will this create delays in widespread IPv6 adoption, where the availability of trillions of IP addresses would make it easier to bypass such censorship?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
SOPA is the "hydrogen bomb" of censorship, and MAD is its solution.
The publisher of MAD is still on the list of supporters. MAD is published by EC Comics, a unit of DC Comics, a unit of Time Warner.
I'll wager the "SOPA-Clients" have only withdrawn, Publicly, whereas as, Privately, their support i.e. money to specific congressman and congressional districts, i.e. Electoral College, for votes, is ... Game On.
EA, Nintendo, Sony Quietly Withdraw SOPA Support? They pay the lobbyist to pay our duly elected officials. What are they going to do ask for a refund? They can have their names struck from the list but that doesn't mean they didn't pony up.
And believe me -- a Linux based F/OSS console and gaming network would spring up so fast with Google's Android as the core, it would become a huge game changer.
Who would make long-form, high-production-value video games for such a platform? Video games distributed as free software and most games on the phone app stores tend to be short-form, the kind of game that has its beginning, middle, and end in 5 to 10 minute plays. But where's the free counterpart to Super Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess or the single-player campaign of Call of Doody, erm, Duty series?
Other people have had this idea over the years.
Banks are not required to give out cash immediately. In cases where their fractional reserve is in peril, they can delay payouts for some period of time (IIRC it's on the order of 24-48 hours, but this has probably changed over the years).
They use the extra time to get a large dollop of cash from the nearest federal reserve branch. The system is set up specifically to prevent a run on the bank, which is what you are suggesting.
The best you could hope is for the bank to delay cash payouts to other customers as a result. People might lose confidence in the bank, and people might be inclined to move their money elsewhere. Especially if you could, for example, force a reserve run a couple of times in a one-month period.
I'm not aware of any of these actions being illegal, but you can bet that the establishment will take a very dim view. They will begin by arresting people for trumped up charges (arresting peaceful people in line at the bank for trespassing, or public nuisance), then passing laws which make this behaviour specifically illegal.
Banks would implement a policy that reads something like: "we don't open new accounts for people who have closed all accounts in the last year" or something. But then again - you don't need to actually close the account, just remove a wad of cash on a specific date.
OTOH, it would spread your message to other bank customers. You would get a lot of publicity.
Does anyone know how much cash this would require? Some branches keep as little as $250,000 on hand. That would only be 250 people with some disposable income. If everyone went at 11:00 on a non-payday, everyone from noon onward might be affected.
Nobody is selling lawfully made copies of Mother 3 or Song of the South, so does that give people the right to pirate? I agree that rights should come with responsibilities, and I too believe in copyresponsibility, such that published works should continue to remain available; it just happens not to be the law of the land.
As much as we have done with being vocal and boycotting, we will not remember. What I mean is that if/when SOPA passes, we will remember somewhere in the back of our heads who we don't like for supporting it, but when the hot new movie/album/AAA game comes out from a SOPA supporter we will go and get it. Perhaps not for our selves, but when the old battleaxe REALLY wants to see that movie, or little Johnny wants "Battle Company of War Hero Commanders XXVI", we will likely cave. It's the nature of the our society right now. We get inflamed and incensed easily, but we fold and forget as well. Hell, I personally despise the way animals are 'factory farmed', but right now I am unemployed and guess what, I can't afford humanely raised beef or free range eggs, so I get the supermarket brand, knowing in the back of my mind that there is a lot of suffering behind it, but I do it anyway. It is even easier when your moral fiber isn't so outraged. You can't immediately see SOPA supporter on an album cover or cows living up to their necks in shit on a package of ground beef, so out comes the wallet and bye go societies ethics.
(These cynical ramblings are purely mine own.)
Silence is a state of mime.
You mean like the tag at the end of the link that says ".pdf" every time?
The last characters of a URL do not necessarily determine the media type of a document delivered over HTTP. The Content-type: header does. Consider these URLs:
Does anyone know if there is a list against SOPA started? It would make for a great comparison.
Kill fucking Zynga.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Checking the list of supporters vs. the legislative agenda of the organization shows some gaps.
Somebody is making this stuff up.
There is definitely a trend in which the product purchased is managed not those who have pride in making a good product, but by those who would go to any lengths possible to take acquire all of ones wealth. Personally, I grow tired of products that remind me of grinning show offs.
All these companies that arebacking out are just posturing. They have already bought the politicians. SOPA will pass.
I understand angst. I understand outrage. I understand wanting to "do something about it."
But Anonymous is a voice without a mission. They and the Occupy protesters expect the world to change policy on a dime just because they've suddenly discovered that the world sucks and the greedy get away with it.
They can both take a spin. The movement to fight the US DEA's dogmatic persecution of cannabis users and patients began before I was born. It's been a multi-generational battle, with each generation teaching the next about what tactics worked, and what tactics didn't Instead of crying that "no one listens to me", the cannabis activists kept learning and adapting as the laws and rules of society changed, but they never gave up on the core mission.
The battle isn't over by any means -- the DEA still insists there is no "medical use" for cannabis despite literally millions of patients around the world testifying to it's usefulness and over a dozen states approving medical cannabis programs.
If a change of policy that is backed by such sound economic, scientific, social, and moral benefits cannot be won in less time, what makes Anonymous and Occupy think they're going to change the world by complaining?!?!?!
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'm posting this from the future -- it's already 2012 in this part of the world (woohoo!)
I wrote my first column for 2012 today and in it I speculate that SOPA, if it's passed into law, might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
While governments all over the world seek to control, regulate, restrict and constrain the internet so as to protect their own power to impose ideologies on those who elect them to power, I have a feeling that SOPA could be just one step too far and might act as a catalyst for the kind of uprising they are trying to suppress.
2012 could be a watershed year and the byte may finally become more powerful than the bullet -- or the ballot.
Read it if you're interested. 2012, the year of the cyber-rebel?
They would have to call the guys back and threaten to support another candidate to accomplish anything. This quiet reversal is not a reversal at all.
did you just feed the troll?
I respect a silent withdrawal more than Godaddy's self-congratulatory noisy one.
I'm wondering if there are an excessive amount of copyright domain take down requests that there could be some judicial review.
Not a single voter is on that list, therefore there is no credible support so it should be scrapped.
So much for sharing.
I think you're confusing poverty and social problems with skin color again.
Maybe the whole color-blind-harmony thing is further off than I hoped.
As I said elsewhere...
Withdrawing Support Not he Same As Joining Opposition
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Good to see voting with your wallet still works. I e-mailed all of those companies informing them that I was going to boycott their products because of their support of SOPA. Hopefully my e-mail played at least some small part in their decision. It'd be nice if they publicly announced their change in stance, but I'll take this as a small victory for democracy.
In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
I think you're confusing poverty and social problems with skin color again.
Maybe the whole color-blind-harmony thing is further off than I hoped.
Just think about this logically for a minute.
... and for some reason you decide to have kids anyway.. a two-parent household can provide for those kids much better than a single mom. When you are at the poverty line or below it this matters much more than if you are wealthy enough to afford children with or without a partner.
... but the families stuck together and took care of each other. You especially see this during the Great Depression. Poverty made them closer because they still had each other.
If you are in poverty
So again.. why do they abandon their kids? If they are in poverty their kids need a second parent even MORE, not less. In most of american history you find families who didn't have much, where younger siblings wore hand-me-down clothes from older ones, where clothes and other things were patched and repaired and used again and again where we would throw them away
With blacks I think it's that they are being irresponsible, having promiscuous sex without birth control with no thought about pregnancy or being ready to raise a child. Being irresponsible enough to do that in the first place they also don't care about the children when they're born. They had no intent to raise them in the first place and just wanted to get their rocks off. Instead of manning up and accepting the responsibility they created they don't care. Another unwanted bastard child with all the problems that causes.
Whites do that too but why do blacks do this more than whites who are also in poverty? Your dismissal hand-waving doesn't answer that. Just admit you don't know. I don't know either. I would guess it's part of the anti-achievement culture so many of them take part in, with the thug image being part of that and the notion that being responsible and trying to better yourself is "acting white" another part and the idea that nothing is ever your fault because you are always the victim of somebody else is another.
They are still members of the Entertainment Software Association, and that one is still on the list. So the conclusion that they pulled their support is not true. They simply made cosmetic changes to avoid further bad PR like GoDaddy got it.
no sig
Because black people aren't more likely to go to jail when accused of a crime, which guarantees they can hold two-parent families just fine! Excellent knowledge. Luckily, people closer to poverty aren't likely to have unprotected sex at an earlier age, having children at an earlier age, which is known to be a common element to single parenting. Thankfully, though, young single parents aren't less likely to unsuccessful to have long lasting relationships that may lead to marriage and restoration of a two-parent household. Good thing the United States hasn't experienced veritable stagflation since the 60s, ensuring that two people working different shifts can make enough to manage the needs of their household without accumulating debt that could eventually deprive them of the security they otherwise had.
Of course, if any of that is wrong, your logic would be vastly flawed. So, if anyone challenges the legitimacy of your claim, here's some studies to hunt down:
Boetcher, Joseph Francis, 2009, Race stereotypic crimes and juror decision making: Hispanic, black, and white defendants, Univerity of Nevada Las Vegas.
Kirby, Douglas et al., 2001, Manifestations of Poverty and Birthrates Among Young Teenagers in California Zip Code Areas, Family Planning Perspectives, Vol33:2, p. 63-69
Kiernan, K. E., 1997, Becoming a young parent: a longitudinal study of associated factors, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Vol48:3, p. 406-428.
Qian, Zhenchao; Lichter, Daniel T.; Mellott, Leanna M., 2005, Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing, Marital Prospects and Mate Selection, Social Forces, Vol. 84:1, p. 473-491
Aratani, Yumiko; Chau, Michelle, 2010, Asset Poverty and Debt Among Families with Children, National Center for Children in Poverty
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
If Mexican drug cartels can hunt them down, doing something that would constitute terrorism would probably end unity among Anonymous. Your supporting logic is solid, but the initiating cause of the claim ignores the way businesses actually look at such practices and long term economic effects. If such things had an effect, Anonymous would be able to force a removal of non-public funding for campaigns just by supporting Occupy Wallstreet more aggressively.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
I would like you to cite sources to your fun fact of, "There have been much more white and Asian slaves in America than have blacks," and also the empirical data you have regarding, "No, they are not the smartest or most advanced race." I don't suspect an anoncow to come up with sources, but, "Fun Facts," unlike, "Foaming Factoids," should, indeed, be confirmable; yet, people love to use the former when they mean the latter, and it doesn't help when media sources are unaware that, "Factoid," means resembling a fact without possessing any of the evidence required to be one.
In fact, contributing members of the media seem to think, "Factoid," means, "Small and inoffensive fact barely of any interest except as a side note to this one piece." This may come from the use of planetoid, which, due to mass and relativity, is usually smaller than what constitutes a planet. That's just my geeky theory, I don't have any evidence regarding the evolution of the term, "Factoid," and I believe only a pop etymologist would have the background and resources to check for it; therefore, confirming the cause of the confusion is well outside of my field of meta-expertise.
"Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
I think is a better analogy. They simply see what is a coming and don't want to be associated with it when it fails.
I doubt Anonymous had anything to do with it.
I feel more and more will start to withdrawal, they don't like losing money. People are making it known that this is a ridiculous bill.
http://freesoftware.moneywithfacebook.biz/ - Free Software http://free-rosetta-stone.blogspot.com/ Rosetta Stone Free