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They have only reduced their support, rather than fully withdrawn it.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.
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
According to their website, their goal is to "bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy." Can anyone explain to me which Biblical principle is at stake here?
Or are there only corporations on the list of supporters. Are there no individuals left? Or are they just not worth listing?
Thou shalt not make copies of things (e.g. movies, music, fish, bread) without first paying.
So JC was a pirate? I knew it! Arrrr!
Well, technically The Bible (most versions) isn't copyrightable due to the sheer age of the publication (it was the very first book off of Gutenberg's first press, FFS).
Maybe they thought SOPA would screw that up in some way?
I'm only half joking, but did want to raise the point that copyright laws have a nasty habit of unintended consequences, and maybe some crafty soul (bless him) scared 'em into thinking that they couldn't copy off and pass around hymns and such anymore.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This is about that most Christian of virtues, making sure that the rich don't have to earn their money.
You have a good point about the IBEW, electrical codes and standards. The code and standards publishing bodies guard their products jealously. And they do chase down people who violate their copyrights aggressively. Sometimes too aggressively, if one assumes 'fair use' and quotes too extensively from their publications.
The NFPA, the publisher of various electrical, safety and fire codes also provides training and (at one time, maybe not anymore) offered a code interpretation service (which may have come dangerously close to providing engineering services without a license). As such, they are in direct competition with other training and engineering service providers. Armed with SOPA, they could pretty much shut down any competing services. Or at least drive them off the 'Net. The IEEE holds a similar position in that many ordinances simply cite their standards in statutes or regulations and expect anyone having to comply with said regulations to cough up $$$ to obtain a copy.
Obligatory bad car analogy: Think of a world where traffic laws just referred to some AAA driving handbook, available only to paying members.
I'm sure that there are many analogous examples in different professions where one quasi-official publisher could effectively control their industry given sufficient ammunition.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
You know that "You wouldn't download a car" adage? Well, Jesus would and could.
He distributed illegal copies of bread and fish (see, no theft, just copying) depriving fishermen and bakers of their profits and circumvented DRM to upgrade water to wine bypassing the winery and proper grapes fermentation process.
That's a lot of bad press everyone is getting. Perhaps they should cancel the proposal, and try again in a few months.
Unlikely. Laws like this tend to have 'wink and nod' exceptions for big players.... any case that is 'obvious' will quietly get dropped.
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.
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.
Publicly funding their code-making function would be a start. And the whole "independent organizations" thing is questionable when my legislature rubber stamps their product as a government regulation. The government is the customer for their product. The government should pay. Once they have to fund the process (instead of passing costs on to a minority of the voting public), they might stop buying into every silly little revision that gets issued.
Have gnu, will travel.
Checking the list of supporters vs. the legislative agenda of the organization shows some gaps.
Somebody is making this stuff up.
So what is your suggestion? Maybe you should shut up and stop complaining about people who are doing something, no matter how small. Ultimately, you're part of the problem.
Great Intellect...
"They have tabled no viable proposals or suggestions." - Define "viable." Did you not see the signs and hear the "I propose..." statements of their general assemblies? There are plenty more proposals and suggestions that they've posted on the internet, too, and some of them make far more sense than anything I've seen from our "representatives" lately.
"They have no speakers informing the public." - So all the youtube videos from Anon, the protestors with signs, the country-wide gatherings to SPEAK and INFORM the public don't count?
"And they have no respect for those they claim kinship with (like the Arab Spring protesters), because while they cry about their "rights" being violated, the people they claim kinship with WERE BEING SHOT AT." - Oh, where to start with this one... So, if someone's not being shot at, their rights aren't being violated? Do rubber bullets count? Does tear gas or pepper spray count? I can think of a few people (including several war veterans) involved in the protests that might disagree with you. Perhaps the woman whose unborn child was killed by police who kicked her in the belly and pepper sprayed her - with no reports or evidence that she was in any way involved in illegal activity might have something to say to you.
Did you watch the live feed? We had several chances to receive live video from Arab Spring protestors, and they didn't seem to think we were disrespecting them. In fact, they seemed overcome with solidarity, happy that they weren't the only ones standing up, even if our circumstances are different. They seemed to think that the police brutality and abuse of the legal system against protestors was a very serious issue, and they did not take it lightly. Perhaps you shouldn't, either.
You and others who share this viewpoint are the reason oppression is allowed to happen. Turning a blind eye to others' suffering or injustice simply because you disagree with their causes, appearance, or perceived lack of hygiene is something Edmund Burke would have denounced as "despicable."
I'd fight for your right to protest the gathering of "dirty squatters," and the founding principles of our country expect you to do the same for them.