Companies supporting SOPA: their web address, Twitter, contact email and phone | Hacker News Reader

Companies supporting SOPA: their web address, Twitter, contact email and phone

docs.google.com

115 pointsgasull22 comments

OK, both Visa and MasterCard are on the list. What other choices do I have for generic electronic payments in the EU? Not that I was harboring any love for these companies at all.

Secondly, how does a company get on this list? I'd believe they have to put their money behind the lobbyists rooting for SOPA. Then, how does a company get removed from the list? Does the lobbyist give their money back? Off course they don't. So staying on the list it is.

Most (all?) of the law firms that had been on the original list have been removed. I see you mark them as needing confirmation. Here's confirmation for Davis Wright Tremaine LLP:

http://twitter.com/#!/DWTLaw/status/150019649130606592

Confirmation - those are words. This game is not based on words. It's based on money. Ask them if the lobbyist company refunded them.

> I see you mark them as needing confirmation.

It is a crowdsourced list I found on Slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/24/0035250/crowdsourced-... I didn't take part on compiling it.

I think all this info is public and available elsewhere, but people compiled it and put it together in a Google spreadsheet.

I was surprised to the Fraternal Order of Police, and other such police organizations on the list. What are they afraid of, that someone will clone a cop? Or are the supporting this bill because, hey, more laws means more cops for law enforcement, right?

  You wouldn't steal a car
  you wouldn't steal a handbag
  you wouldn't steal a television,
  you wouldn't steal a movie.

Online piracy is a crime, m'cay?

If we made laws that protected the uniqueness of first names to artificially boost the name creating industry, stealing names would become a crime as well. Name theft in the sense of the law would be theft but it wouldn't be like stealing a car, because stealing a car would have negative repercussions even if it were legal.

Enforcing everyone has unique names might have a high enforcement cost, which is why it may not be worth cost to society. Likewise enforcing copyright for consumer use has become harder and harder as well and at some point it won't be worth it either. Enforcing property laws however is cheap because it's hard for everyone to mass-steal cars and protect their own property.

Apparently my sarcasm wasn't totally obvious. Well that's Poe's law for me I guess.

Oh sorry, at least we collectively will catch everybody.

And at the bottom:

Xerox.

I find this to be ironic.

I laughed :) Maybe they want to be Gods? Now they have the power to destroy their creation for once.

Zippo? Weird.

Seems like a whole bunch of big name brands were told by the chamber of commerce that they were signing on to oppose the sale of counterfeit merchandise online. Which you know they aren't unless they're planning to SOPA shutdown eBay.

They will be more careful next time. Also, there are interests behind many of these. One rich group could spawn dozen of various "alliances" and "associations", just to hide behind diversity. The money flying here are billions, so how much does them cost to run 20 agencies each with 2 or 3 people employed?

I didn't realize there was a market for knockoff Zippos, but that totally makes sense.

just when i wanted to get a new pair of Oakley's ;(

I have not been convinced SOPA is a bad thing. I read the bill and all the chicken little posts around the web and even asked someone to show me the basis of their fear. I have never received any response beyond the chicken little screams of terror.

I admit I may be missing something. I've explained my point of view from what I've read. All I hear in response ranges from the whole internet will crash down upon our heads to every site in existence today will be taken down and sued to everybody's going to die cause they can't get their Canadian medicine.

Such fantastic psychotic episodes only lead to my cynicism.

Perhaps you've not read any of the well written posts about the bill. Here is a start:

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/dont-break-internet

And not that it's a means to basis your entire belief on, but look at the people opposing this bill, and what they have to say:

http://dq99alanzv66m.cloudfront.net/sopa/img/12-14-letter.pd...

The second paragraph of the stanfordlawreview.org link is pretty succinct:

"To begin with, the bills represent an unprecedented, legally sanctioned assault on the Internet’s critical technical infrastructure. Based upon nothing more than an application by a federal prosecutor alleging that a foreign website is “dedicated to infringing activities,” Protect IP authorizes courts to order all U.S. Internet service providers, domain name registries, domain name registrars, and operators of domain name servers—a category that includes hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses, colleges, universities, nonprofit organizations, and the like—to take steps to prevent the offending site’s domain name from translating to the correct Internet protocol address. These orders can be issued even when the domains in question are located outside of the United States and registered in top-level domains (e.g., .fr, .de, or .jp) whose operators are themselves located outside the United States; indeed, some of the bills’ remedial provisions are directed solely at such domains."

From wikipedia:

"The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who requests the court orders, the actions could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for 10 pieces of music or movies within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.[4]"

If you find this misleading or incorrect, let us know. Here's the original: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112...

Why don't you read SOPA for Dummies - then post your thoughts so we can help clear up and share to the world :) Happy Holidays.

http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2011/12/21/confused-by-the-s...

This is really stupid. While purporting to clear things up, it's just bad mouthing the bill and taking quotes from others who are against it. It's similar to anything I've been sent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com