9 ms·
Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
- rexf 15y agoIt was very conspicuous yesterday that Apple & Microsoft did not show up on the anti-SOPA NYTimes ad: http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/16/google-facebook-twitter-and-others-speak-out-against-the-stop/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/16/google-facebook-twitter-a...
- guywithabike 15y agoAlso conspicuous that Y Combinator wasn't on the ad. It's clear and obvious that PG and Y Combinator are in full support of SOPA.
- monochromatic 15y agoHar har.
- tikhonj 15y agoThose were all internet companies--internet freedom really matters to them. Microsoft and Apple, on the other hand, make money by restricting users' freedom and do not rely on the internet nearly as heavily. Their covertly supporting SOPA does not really come as a surprise.
- Volpe 15y ago> Microsoft and Apple, on the other hand, make money by restricting users' freedom Umm, actually I think they make their money buy selling products. Consumers are rarely (ever?) driven by a "restrict my freedom" motive...
- tikhonj 15y agoThe two aren't mutually exclusive. Sure, only selling things makes revenue directly. However, policies abridging freedom help both companies scale--by attempting to lock users into their platforms and making it difficult or impossible to not buy their software when getting a new computer, both companies get more people to spend more money.
- Volpe 15y agoCould you elaborate on how MS and Apple do this specifically? I find their revenue models very different, Apply making it on hardware + iTunes (Music, apps, movies, etc), MS making it on Software. How do you group them as the same? And call it 'Lock-in'? Edit: for clarity
- lparry 15y agowell they obviously restrict our freedom to use their software without paying, which we should all be entitled to do /sarcasm
- billpatrianakos 15y agoI think what his message is meant to be taken in the "Free Software" sense. You know, proprietary anything is evil, all software should be free, hippies rule the new utopia and all that. I won't speak for Microsoft as I'm not sure how they do it but what you mentioned with Apple and iTunes is pretty much it right there. What people who repeat this message forget is that this "lock-in" is not bad or evil to many people. Sure, the hackers want to install their own apps and use alternative app stores and all that in which case I'd say find another (or create another) platform. My mother and the vast majority of consumers want to tap their screens a couple of times and get a cool app. It's not lock-in to them. To them it's easy and convenient. Technology is for everyone, not just those l33t enough to hack.
- podperson 15y agoYou know what those companies have in common? They don't sell software. If your business is basically running a website, what do you care about piracy? Not defending SOPA -- I don't have a clue about its intricacies -- but when a bunch of companies that don't sell software are against a bill that purports to try to do something about software piracy, I don't really see what the news is. In fact, these companies are all basically ad networks...
- wmf 15y agoSOPA is mostly about music and movie piracy and any site that allows you to upload audio, video, or files is a target.
- wanorris 15y agoBut the bill would give software companies the same tools to go after warez sites too. Why wouldn't Adobe want to be able to crack down on sites that distribute cracked copies of Photoshop? Or Microsoft with illegal copies of Windows or Office? That's not to say this is a good bill. It's not. But if it's in the interests of companies with significant IP to protect to support it, companies with significant IP to protect like Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple can be expected to support it. Their support is really that simple.
- nextparadigms 15y agoDoes that mean Microsoft and Apple have to support any anti-piracy bill, without any regard for its consequences? Because if that's true, then they are no better than RIAA and MPAA and they couldn't care less about the Internet and censorship, as long as they reduce the pirated copies by 10% (if that).
- RexRollman 15y agoCompanies, even those fighting this bill, only care about their own interests. That's why I think people who blindly trust companies to do the right thing are crazy.
- dmak 15y agoI am really worried for the future of the internet.
- AlexMuir 15y agoThe membership of this group is basically a list of businesses that startups should be chipping away at. Let them spend their time lobbying, while you sneak up behind them and whack them on the head with your niche webapp. -- Adobe Apple Autodesk AVEVA AVG Bentley Systems CA Cadence Design Systems CNC Software – Mastercam Compuware Corel Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation Dell Intel Intuit Kaspersky McAfee Microsoft Minitab Progress Software PTC Quark Quest Rosetta Stone Siemens PLM Software, Inc. Sybase Symantec TechSmith The MathWorks
- AlexMuir 15y agoDownvoters, educate me! What's the issue here?
- brk 15y agoI downvoted you... First, that list of companies has deep pockets, and it is WAY harder to undue legislation than prevent it in the first place. So, suggesting in any way that we let it be and take some other tactic is bad advice, IMO. Second the "niche webapp" bit is way too cliche. What "webapp" is going to threaten Dell, Intel or Apple? Even some of the software companies on that list focus on things that are not going to fall prey to "niche webapps" for any foreseeable time. So, to me, your comment was a strawman that added no value.
- AlexMuir 15y agoThanks, I appreciate the opportunity to engage. Apple, Intel and Dell are the misfits on that list, fine. Although by the same logic Microsoft (the equivalent of a webapp developer in its time) should pose no threat to IBM. For sure, they aren't going to fall prey to a single webapp. But they are being chipped away at - Autodesk is now up against Sketchup. Microsoft is facing Google Docs, iOS, Ubuntu, Android etc etc etc. All those competing products came from acquired startups - I doubt they set out to 'fell Microsoft' , and nor have they done it. I wholeheartedly agree with you that we oughtn't to let this legislation roll through - I was a bit flippant on that.
- 15y ago
- luigi 15y agoHere's the Influence Explorer profile of the BSA: http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/business-software-alliance/46874d0b98b747209ab536d1b2823e98 http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/business-software-...
- Alex3917 15y agoBased on Google's congressional testimony yesterday, it sounds like even they are willing to support the bill as long as it's changed so that Google themselves aren't affected.
- naner 15y agoNotice that the supporters are software companies and the opposed are Internet companies. Here is a theory I proposed yesterday[1]: Microsoft makes the vast majority of their money selling licenses. So does the entertainment industry. For years these industries (software, music, and video) grew to massive size by exploiting cheap duplication of digital goods and control over distribution channels. Now that further advancing technology has brought duplication and distribution to the masses they are franticly trying to regain control. The opposing tech companies sell services and advertising. Copyright infringement largely doesn't affect their bottom-line and these proposed measures will be costly for them to implement and legally difficult for them to follow. Google's lawyers bringing up the Wikileaks payment processor embargo as a preferred solution also supports this position. Google (and other Internet companies) aren't really trying to protect free speech or other perceived rights, they are merely trying to protect their own interests. 1: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3246019 http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3246019
- steve-howard 15y agoI have interned with Microsoft in the past, and am scheduled to in the future. Therefore take everything I say with a metric ton of salt. Obviously my opinions don't speak for them. Most corporations put their lobbying efforts behind or against legislation based on what's in their interest. I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed. I don't like SOPA one bit, and I don't think it should pass. I think what this highlights, however, is that legislation should stem from principles and the interest of the people (individuals only, please). This is not currently the case, thanks in part to a long history of Supreme Court decisions (culminating in Citizens United v. FEC) which permits corporations to buy politicians. It is certainly not in most politicians' interest to alter the status quo. As with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, I say again: if corporations are following the law of the land in a way that's detrimental to the public, then the law is what's broken. In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. In any case I'm appalled that the primary concern with sweeping and dangerous legislation is what will happen to the economy, and not the basis on which such a law is founded.
- CyruzDraxs 15y agoIt's no coincidence that most of the companies on that list sell mediocre software for way more than it's worth. They rob us with their high prices, yet they throw a tantrum when we rob them back. Make your software suck less and maybe I'll consider paying for it.
- BobPalmer 15y ago"They rob us with their high prices, yet they throw a tantrum when we rob them back" Last I checked, nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy a piece of software that you feel is overpriced for your perceived benefit. And that certainly does not give you the right to just outright steal it. There simply is no moral justification for that - it's theft, plain and simple. If you feel something is overpriced, then don't buy it - either go with an alternative, or build a competing product and disrupt. But I daresay they are justified in 'throwing a tantrum' when people steal their stuff.
- dchest 15y ago(Speaking as an owner of a software business). Ehr, sorry, but this is not true. It's not a gun, but you have to own a copy of Windows for some government/state services in some countries, because their software is written for it. Also, copying software is not a "theft, plain and simple". I'm not sure how you missed the whole debate about it that lasts for a few decades. If it was so "plain and simple", there would be no debate.
- tzs 15y agoYeah, how about that. In short, Microsoft is using a front group to throw its support behind SOPA, while publicly saying and doing nothing, thus avoiding our rancor and displeasure. Well, no, that won’t do at all. Note that the article provides no support whatsoever for the claim that BSA is a Microsoft front group, or that Microsoft is using it to intentionally support SOPA. I'm surprised this hasn't been flagged to death. Are people not actually reading the article?
- rbanffy 15y agoAll Microsoft has to do is to publicly state they don't support SOPA. This is hard to believe because they supported PIPA. The conclusion Microsoft suports SOPA by helping support an organzation that supports it is inescapable.
- tptacek 15y agoTextbook logical fallacy.
- shabda 15y ago1. BSA has long been critisized as a fornt for MS. [1] 2. Microsoft is widely believed to be largest contributor to BSA [2] How is it a fallacy to assume MS has a large voice in deciding BSA's policy? Also when you dismiss an argument with a pithy "Textbook logical fallacy", shouldn't you disclose that MS is one of your clients? [3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance#Crit... [2] http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&... [3] http://www.matasano.com/about/ http://www.matasano.com/about/
- tptacek 15y agoGah! You figured me out! Secret shill for Microsoft! The fallacy is, "if they're not guilty, all they need to do is deny it". It's used by the powerful against the powerless way more often than it's used against big companies, which is all the more reason not to legitimize it.
- feralchimp 15y agoThere's no story here. The alternative to "supporting SOPA in virtue of membership in the BSA" is "leaving the BSA over the BSA generally lobbying government to enforce copyright protections." That's kind of the point of the organization. If you don't expect AutoDesk and MathWorks and SolidWorks to leave the BSA just to avoid this kind of second-rate muckraker reporting, then ignore the fact that Microsoft, CA, and Apple didn't leave either.
- recusancy 15y agoApple left the Chamber of Commerce over their stance on climate change. Why is this different? Sometimes an organization that you belong to goes too far.
- feralchimp 15y agoUpvoted that.
- billpatrianakos 15y agoThe chamber of commerce is amateur hour to Apple whereas the BSA actually has a bit of pull. There's a big difference.
- throwaway64 15y agothis is not a new thing, that's what you are missing here, this isnt some radical position shift for the BSA where the companies that are members have had no time to react to this extreme position they have chosen to take. The BSA actively states it speaks for all that list of companies, if the companies both remain a member and do not state otherwise thats _exactly_ what they do. I mean you are falling for their trick if you chose not to blame the member corporations of their BSA for the actions/statements of the BSA, that is exactly its purpose, to take positions that are unpopular/anti consumer, and shield their members from criticism. It works for the RIAA/MPAA, it works for the BSA too...
- nandemo 15y agoSurely that's not the only alternative. Another would be "influencing the BSA not to support SOPA", or support alternative legislation that still caters to the interests of BSA. Note also that BSA members fund it proportionally to each member's revenues, so it's fair to assume that Microsoft and Apple have a bigger weight in its decisions.
- dfc 15y agoDisclaimer: I am whole heartedly against SOPA That being said I think that it is important to raise the level of discourse on this issue in the community and I do not think that this article does much to that end: "We can, however, show that it does. And somewhat disingenuously, if I may." Since when does membership/support of business alliances and/or lobbyists count as disingenious? I do not think you will see any veteran reporters on the hill write that being a member of the BSA equates with any disingenious activity; the fact that microsoft is a member is public knowledge.
- jvandenbroeck 15y agoFinally a list you can use as a computer science graduate to know for which companies you are absolutely not going to work.
- the-cakeboss 15y agoWhy wouldn't you work there? Does trying to protect your IP and business ( albeit in a completely inappropriate and detrimental way ) indicate a poor employer?
- jvandenbroeck 15y agoIn my opinion it is also about values, I can totally understand why they favor these laws, but I want to work for a company that has the same values as I have. Its like the zinga incident in which they forced employees to give back their unvested stock. I can totally understand it from a business view, but its a "bad smell". If I worked for Microsoft now,I would really feel bad
- ericd 15y agoMany people don't want to work for an employer who has no principles. In this case, hobbling the internet is pretty clearly a large net negative for society, and pretty much the only reasons you would try to do that is for reasons of pure self-interest.
- the-cakeboss 15y agoWhy wouldn't you work there? Does trying to protect your IP and business ( albeit in a completely inappropriate and detrimental way ) indicate a poor employer?
- andrewfelix 15y agoI was on the fence about whether being a BSA member was enough to make one complicit in support of SOPA. But I think I've been swayed...BSA's support of SOPA would add a huge weight of legitimacy to the pro SOPA supporters. It's disturbing to say the least.
- caycep 15y agoWhy is Apple still a member of the BSA? They might as well pull out. They aren't in the business of selling costly software licenses - they give most of their software away, ostensibly to drive hardware sales. But it seems to me there's little that BSA does that dovetails in their interest.
- the-cakeboss 15y agoPossibly to drive more revenue towards iTunes and whatever other online initiatives they have in the works. While they themselves aren't being heavily affected by copyright infringement they do have an interest in more people turning towards legal outlets for content. Furthermore, it is quite possible that they feel the need to maintain a good relationship with the RIAA et al.
- incongruity 15y agoI can't help but wonder if this couldn't be made into an opportunity for those of us who oppose SOPA. All of the companies in the BSA are big/high value. Nevertheless, my gut tells me that some of the companies on that list are not ones that would be ready to face the limelight of an organized protest. Real or virtual. As such, targeting a few of the more vulnerable companies on that list could make them publicly distance themselves from the legislation, if not outright oppose it.
- ZipCordManiac 15y agoI apologize if this is covered in the article, but I could not find it. Does anybody know when the vote on SOPA happens ? How long afterwords until they start prosecutions and shutdowns ?
- MBlume 15y agoThis is pretty simple. If you work for one of those companies, quit.
- mey 15y agoHow is this a simple solution? What does an individual value more, income stability or their information access? With a little less snark, employee's should consider alternative employment.
- MBlume 15y agoSimple != easy. That said, there's been a lot of links on the front page suggesting a seller's market for developer talent.
- throwaway64 15y agoWhat do you value more, freedom or material comfort?
- mey 15y agoIf I need to wander into the wilderness I will, but there is a gray area. We can fight for freedom, without sacrificing material comforts at the moment. In general I prefer evolution to revolution, so the less extreme action is the first one I will try.
- mlinksva 15y agoBSA membership is smaller than I would've guessed, eg HP, IBM, Oracle, and SAP aren't members. Good for them. Why are Dell and Intel members? None of their direct competitors are.
- idspispopd 15y agoThis link is tenuous at best. Being a member of BSA does not mean that the BSA dictates policy for these companies. (BSA is a non profit that comes under criticism for their rather obscure 'piracy' estimates.) It's like saying google support SOPA because they do business with the RIAA.
- billpatrianakos 15y agoOver 100 comments here and most everyone seems surprised? The reporting in that article was complete crap. I don't like Microsoft but I don't see any evidence in this article for the claim that the BSA is a front for MS. That bit was recycled from a claim Some years ago in Uruguay which also doesn't totally make it clear that the BSA is a front. Aside from the writer's total desperate reaching for a real story, let's all remember this is the BSA. the BSA has been independently campaigning to stop piracy by all means necessary for years now. How is this any shock at all that now they'd support SOPA? It's not Google supporting it, it's big ass software companies! Come on! So you mention Apple in the title and we're all supposed to be shocked and horrified? We're supposed to be shocked that the company that just had record breaking profits is going to support a piece of legislation that is total dog shit for everyone but huge copyright holders? Come on now. Let's cut the crap and be real. This is a non story. SOPA sucks, I love Apple, I'm still not moved. Waste of time to read.