7 ms·

Notice that the supporters are software companies and the opposed are Internet companies. Here is a theory I proposed yesterday[1]: Microsoft makes the vast ma

by naner 15y ago

Notice 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 ago
I 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.
- naner 15y ago
  Right and this also explains other behavior. Take patents, for example. Microsoft took advantage of the laws pertaining to software patents and now that they have a massive patent portfolio, they use them to generate revenue and hurt competitors. And they try to influence the law to protect or enhance this revenue stream and competitive advantage. So Microsoft is somewhat a product of the legal terrain and the legal terrain is to some extent a reflection of Microsoft (and other companies). And our congresspeople could be imagined as mini corporations. Instead of selling goods and services they sell political influence. Instead of shareholders they have constituents. And they often act according to their best financial interests.
- esrauch 15y ago
  > In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that only the independently wealthy would be able to successfully run for office.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    Public funding. If getting information to the public about candidates costs money, then that's just another tragedy of the commons - an external cost of government that is simply ignored so that the rich and powerful can have government to themselves. It is very easy to argue that informing the public about their options in an election is essential and should therefore be covered by public funds.
    - pnathan 15y ago
      That's a very good place for using public funds, in my opinion.
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      Who decides which candidates get public money to spend?
      - 15y ago
bomatson 15y ago
You're absolutely right. There's not even a gray area between the companies supporting vs. opposing SOPA. Black and white. SOPA would be a huge backstep for anyone trying to innovate or sustain on the web
snowwrestler 15y ago
The dividing line can be neatly seen as whether a company derives its value from server-hosted software or not. Companies which derive their value from server-hosted software have no reason to support IP-protecting legislation because their IP is already protected by the server/client architecture. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, most game companies, and of course content companies transmit their entire IP to each customer. It is impossible to technologically prevent the copying of this IP--we all know the failings of DRM. Thus they must depend on the law for protection. I hypothesize that Google might be less sanguine about IP protections if a new technology became available which allowed anyone to easily view and copy the Google search algorithm code at any time.
yuhong 15y ago
Yea, "artificial scarcity" is the key word.
tomlin 15y ago
I feel like people got soft as soon as they saw Apple on the BSA. A few people I work with were dead-set against SOPA and all it stood for - suddenly, after seeing Apple here, had a completely different, sympathetic opinion towards it. Are you fucking kidding me? This is what is wrong with movements like these - they are easily bent on self-fulfilling, cognitive dissonance. It's disgusting.
imran 15y ago
Of all, Apple only supported because steve jobs is not there.

by naner 15y ago

steve-howard 15y ago

I 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.

naner 15y ago
Right and this also explains other behavior. Take patents, for example. Microsoft took advantage of the laws pertaining to software patents and now that they have a massive patent portfolio, they use them to generate revenue and hurt competitors. And they try to influence the law to protect or enhance this revenue stream and competitive advantage. So Microsoft is somewhat a product of the legal terrain and the legal terrain is to some extent a reflection of Microsoft (and other companies). And our congresspeople could be imagined as mini corporations. Instead of selling goods and services they sell political influence. Instead of shareholders they have constituents. And they often act according to their best financial interests.
esrauch 15y ago
> In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that only the independently wealthy would be able to successfully run for office.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Public funding. If getting information to the public about candidates costs money, then that's just another tragedy of the commons - an external cost of government that is simply ignored so that the rich and powerful can have government to themselves. It is very easy to argue that informing the public about their options in an election is essential and should therefore be covered by public funds.
  - pnathan 15y ago
    That's a very good place for using public funds, in my opinion.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    Who decides which candidates get public money to spend?
    - 15y ago

bomatson 15y ago

You're absolutely right. There's not even a gray area between the companies supporting vs. opposing SOPA. Black and white. SOPA would be a huge backstep for anyone trying to innovate or sustain on the web

snowwrestler 15y ago

The dividing line can be neatly seen as whether a company derives its value from server-hosted software or not. Companies which derive their value from server-hosted software have no reason to support IP-protecting legislation because their IP is already protected by the server/client architecture. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, most game companies, and of course content companies transmit their entire IP to each customer. It is impossible to technologically prevent the copying of this IP--we all know the failings of DRM. Thus they must depend on the law for protection. I hypothesize that Google might be less sanguine about IP protections if a new technology became available which allowed anyone to easily view and copy the Google search algorithm code at any time.

yuhong 15y ago

Yea, "artificial scarcity" is the key word.

tomlin 15y ago

I feel like people got soft as soon as they saw Apple on the BSA. A few people I work with were dead-set against SOPA and all it stood for - suddenly, after seeing Apple here, had a completely different, sympathetic opinion towards it. Are you fucking kidding me? This is what is wrong with movements like these - they are easily bent on self-fulfilling, cognitive dissonance. It's disgusting.

imran 15y ago

Of all, Apple only supported because steve jobs is not there.