Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Your Rights Online

Crowdsourced List of SOPA Supporters 180

Posted by timothy
from the shame-if-anything-was-t'-happen dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Crowdsourced List of SOPA Supporters

Comments Filter:
  • Google Docs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @08:56AM (#38481350)
    Can someone please post a link that is accessible to everyone, not just Google users?
  • by blowdart (31458) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @08:58AM (#38481360) Homepage
    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.
    • by Technician (215283) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @11:47AM (#38482580)

      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/ [makezine.com]

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

      • by Raumkraut (518382)

        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.

        • by Smallpond (221300)

          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.

    • 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.

  • by classzero (321541) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:07AM (#38481408) Journal

    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 [gizmodo.com]

    • by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:26AM (#38481538)

      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 [rudysyndrome.com], 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.

      • by Alsee (515537) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @03:05PM (#38484138) Homepage

        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"

        -

  • LVMH (Score:3, Funny)

    by alen (225700) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:09AM (#38481422)

    no $1000 handbag for my wife now.

    • by halo1982 (679554) *

      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.

      • by cynyr (703126)

        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.

      • by shentino (1139071)

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

      • I didn't know that guy selling purses out of his trunk had a website...
  • by blind biker (1066130) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:10AM (#38481430) Journal

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

  • crowdsourced (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:10AM (#38481432) Homepage

    "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.

    • Re:crowdsourced (Score:5, Insightful)

      by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex@Nos ... t-retrograde.com> on Saturday December 24, 2011 @10:04AM (#38481832)

      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)

      • by BondGamer (724662)

        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.

        • by tverbeek (457094)

          "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.

          • by FSWKU (551325)
            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.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

      • by Zebedeu (739988)

        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.

    • Re:crowdsourced (Score:5, Insightful)

      by houstonbofh (602064) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @11:40AM (#38482508)

      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.

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

  • by wbr1 (2538558) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:16AM (#38481472)
    (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.
    • (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.

  • Autodesk (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pieisgood (841871) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:18AM (#38481490) Journal

    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?

    • 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.

    • 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 st

      • 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.

      • Re:I'm not (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bmo (77928) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @11:28AM (#38482414)

        >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

        • 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!
      • by cynyr (703126)

        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

    • Re:Autodesk (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pieisgood (841871) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @10:00AM (#38481796) Journal

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

  • Wait?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by eclectro (227083) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:27AM (#38481542)

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

    • 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."
    • 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.

    • Re:Wait?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:50AM (#38481704)

      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?

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24, 2011 @09:28AM (#38481556)

    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 [godaddy.com]
    http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf [house.gov]

    • Fundamentalists will love this. Goodby pornhub, redtube, pichunter, and so on... They want to send porn back to DVDs and dirty magazines.
    • by iamwahoo2 (594922) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @12:46PM (#38483058)

      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.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      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.

    • by tqk (413719)

      Supporters.pdf [house.gov]

      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?

    • by reub2000 (705806)

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

  • 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

  • by qtp (461286) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @11:50AM (#38482606) Journal

    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.

  • 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

  • by DodgeRules (854165) on Saturday December 24, 2011 @01:21PM (#38483354)

    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.

  • 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.
  • 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.

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

  • 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
    • 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.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...