8 ms·

Microsoft, Apple and Others Withdrawal Support for SOPA

219 points by JDulin 15y ago

nirvana 15y ago
This HN title is inaccurate. There's no evidence that Microsoft or Apple actually supported SOPA. Merely an industry association of which they are members, supported it. This association removed its support. A more appropriate title would be "Business Software Alliance withdraws support for SOPA." I'm pretty sure most people on HN who know what SOPA is, know who the BSA is, and if not they'd learn it from reading the article. I don't think its fair to imply that Microsoft or Apple (or any of the other BSA members) supported SOPA, as it seems likely the BSA was engaging in knee jerk support and didn't consult its membership. I, personally, think the BSA should strongly opposes SOPA because it doesn't represent the interest of its member companies in the long run. But the title given here is just unfair.
- shaggyfrog 15y ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong, but why then was the "Business Software Alliance" supporting SOPA in the first place? I don't think "knee-jerk support" covers it. There's a political reason there, surely. If MS/Apple/whoever didn't like it, why weren't they publicly saying so?
  - pyre 15y ago
    It's possible that it's all a politics game. Either some weird political stuff with the people that actually run the BSA or some idea like "Let's not speak out against this because it will hurt competitors like Google" (so they implicitly support it by not speaking out against the BSA's support of it).
  - ugh 15y ago
    Maybe their previous strategy was fully backed by most of their members, maybe some members changed their opinion during the last days, maybe some members were always against their previous strategy, maybe the BSA acted somewhat autonomously until members started waking up, it’s hard to say. One thing I might be willing to infer from the change in direction is that there was no consensus before and that there still isn’t one. I think it’s very plausible that some members were always against and some always for the BSA’s strategy. Members seemingly also decided to solve this problem internally by lobbying for their position privately inside the BSA.
- andrewfelix 15y ago
  The BSA represents its members. How could that not possibly suggest complicit support?
  - daeken 15y ago
    I'm an EFF member and strongly support the overall cause, but also strongly disagree with many of its initiatives and positions. I imagine the situation is similar with regards to the BSA and its members, as it is with any group.
    - andrewfelix 15y ago
      If the EFF announced support for a bill that would negatively change the entire landscape of the internet as we know it, would you still be a member of the EFF? Would you continue paying dues and remain silent on the issue?
      - alextgordon 15y ago
        And once enough of its members kicked up a fuss, it would probably change its position on that matter. Sound familiar?
        andrewfelix 15y ago
        BSA's members only kicked up a fuss once people like you and I started making noise.
        alextgordon 15y ago
        Sure, but the point is that being a member of the BSA doesn't imply support of SOPA. Maybe it did yesterday, but it especially didn't a few weeks ago, before this whole thing received so much attention. The simplest explanation is that the members who were indifferent before, have changed their position in light of the recent "noise". But you can't work backwards and say that those members were originally in support of the bill.
- tomlin 15y ago
  > it seems likely the BSA was engaging in knee jerk support and didn't consult its membership. So, you're saying these companies aren't responsible for their actions because they stand behind an organization that they pay into? Must be nice. I wish I could haphazardly align myself with interest groups and just hope everything works out for me, but if it doesn't, have deniability.
- JDulin 15y ago
  I understand what you are saying and will try to make future HN posts more accurate. However, the BSA has been the only source of info as to what Apple, Microsoft, and most of the other association members have to say on SOPA. To my knowledge, none of the companies with BSA membership have made any independent statements[1] on the bill, and if so, certainly not on the scale Google did. * My hunch is that the BSA was created for a reason in addition to stopping copyright infringement: To represent these companies without their explicit support, just like any good lobbying company. If we are considering evidence as to what these companies' positions are, the BSA is the only source we have, and the fact most of them stand to gain from software licenses. [1] If anyone has seen a BSA member show opposition to SOPA in the past few weeks, I'd like to see. *Edit
  - beagle3 15y ago
    Another example: RIAA - it does exactly what its member companies want, but they get to distance themselves. Similarly, the MPAA.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  Guilt by association. I didn't hear Apple or Microsoft threatening to withdraw funding for the BSA in light of this bill.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    And yet the BSA has revoked its support. Are you just mad because MS didn't 3-way you in when they called BSA to complain?
    - lukeschlather 15y ago
      Personally I'm mad because Microsoft, Apple, and the rest haven't given an opinion one way or another. Without any official statements I can only assume that they were fully in support of the BSA's actions, but they are backpedaling in light of the public outcry.
      - einhverfr 15y ago
        the interesting thing about corporations having free speech rights is that one would expect that they might use them when standing up in cases like this. I would agree that Microsoft's silence here is probably tacit support.
shaggyfrog 15y ago
I guess the question that gets immediately raised in my mind is: what the heck were these companies doing supporting the damned thing in the first place? It's like the rats scattering when the light turns on. Is all of corporate America happy to support these egregious pieces of legislation as long as the public doesn't find out? That last part was mostly rhetorical... mostly.
- pyre 15y ago
  > It's like the rats scattering when the light turns on. Don't insult the rats.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  As I've said elsewhere, conservation of incompetence seems the likeliest explanation. The companies have better things to do, so no one in charge realizes that they're dues paying members of an organization that's advancing a truly moronic cause. Until the press gets involved, then things get escalated and straightened back out. Assuming that's in the neighborhood of truth, it highlights the importance of a press free from government and corporate interference.
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    SOPA is pretty egregious, and it looks like it could get everyone in a lot of trouble given the way someone can merely allege copyright infringement and get a site blacklisted. Any company with a crucial web presence definitely does not have better things to than stop this bill from being passed.
- antihero 15y ago
  Well, it simply highlights the fact that whilst people may deceive themselves into thinking that what's good for companies is good for everyone (due to increasing of wealth and production), we realise that companies are in it for the people who run the companies, and if there so happens to be some downright abhorrent legislation that may benefit them, they'll support it until it becomes an issue where the net impact will be negative, due to bad press and the like. It's morality by committee.
rbanffy 15y ago
Interesting how fast they distance themselves from SOPA now they know we are paying attention. Won't fool me. I only hope the next SOPA, wich will certainly sound less outrageous, in special when compared to this, is met with equal opposition. SOPA is not commendable. Nor will be its offspring.
yumraj 15y ago
I think you mean "Adobe" and not "Apple", since "Apple" is not mentioned anywhere in that article.
- webfuel 15y ago
  According to this page (http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members.aspx http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members...) Apple is a member.
  - donohoe 15y ago
    Yes, a member but it is not mentioned at all in this article. yumraj's original point still stands.
- zb 15y ago
  It's a reference to a previous article that specifically called out Microsoft and Apple as tacit SOPA supporters by virtue of their membership in the BSA.
danilocampos 15y ago
Can anyone on the inside explain how this kind of thing works? This is my thinking: These companies belong to different trade groups. They pay their dues, contribute opinions on different things, but mostly leave these groups alone and go on doing their actual business. Meanwhile, the trade groups advance their own agenda, given a mostly free hand by their constituency, which again, has better things to do. The group doesn't actually do all that much that's useful, otherwise their staff would be working for real companies. But they shuffle papers around, undertake activities like, say, harass small businesses about software licenses, and generally look like they have a reason for being. Then, occasionally, these groups will step in dogshit and have to field a bunch of phone calls basically saying "Why the fuck am I paying you dues in exchange for this bad press? Make it go away." And then the offending group needs to walk back the cat as happened in this blog post. Plausible? Is that how this works? The explanation with the most incompetence involved seems most likely to me.
- ypcx 15y ago
  I don't think we need to dig into specific technicalities of this, especially with our limited knowledge of the hidden, behind-the-curtain power structures. This law was specifically designed to create an internet weapon of suppression of the unwanted. Apple could have use this to suppress jail breaking. Microsoft could use this to suppress Linux. Lobbyists could use this to suppress the Occupy movement. The powers that be as such could use this to destroy the power internet gives to people, first time in history. However for some reason, they have miscalculated - they did not expect this kind of organization, backlash and opposition. Now they are just trying to distance themselves to save what's left of their images. The reason why they miscalculated is a mystery to me, perhaps they have realized they have let this "internet" thing go way too far, they cannot control it anymore using controlled disinformation techniques, and this was one of their last attempts to stop this trend. Yes, it's really that bad out there. But it's getting better.
  - jka 15y ago
    Personally, I agree with all of the points you made here, except for the suggestion that we don't need to dig further. The SOPA bill (still) has a lot of potential to enable Internet censorship, and for something that far-reaching I think it's fairly important to be transparent about the various lobbying groups and their aims.
andrewfelix 15y ago
This is great news. I think HN and it's members probably helped a lot in making this happen. Give yourselves a pat on the back, you're enacting change!
- tsotha 15y ago
  Or at least preventing change that wouldn't have been good. But of course, this thing will be back next year, probably chopped up into little pieces and inserted into other bills.
bgentry 15y ago
The word in the title should be "Withdraw", not "Withdrawal"
- bgentry 15y ago
  An explanation would be appropriate if you're downvoting.
  - james33 15y ago
    I up-voted you, that was the first thing I noticed when reading the title.
donohoe 15y ago
Wait a second - there is no mention of "Apple" at all in this article (or the one it references).
thomasgerbe 15y ago
"The definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions and what remedies are imposed must be tightened and narrowed." Glad he pointed out the obvious. (not being sarcastic)
Fice 15y ago
Get it rolling, and then distance yourself safely.
- danssig 15y ago
  That's pretty cynical. If big business is backing out, SOPA is dead. The people don't want it, the politicians don't care either way so long as they get money.
idspispopd 15y ago
This idea that BSA's view = Microsoft + Apple's view has always been an utterly ridiculous assumption for the press to make. This posting's title is equally ridiculous for directly equating the two. It's infantile and this kind of fact skewing doesn't belong on HN. BSA acts independently, but on behalf of it's members. BSA have proven themselves to be a bit nutty when it comes to infringement, so it wasn't surprising that they jumped on SOPA initially. However, as above, it was already a stretch by the press to connect BSA's view point on SOPA to the idea that all BSA members unanimously supported SOPA. This sudden change of face from BSA indicates that indeed the members have spoken up and they do not agree with SOPA, and that the entire thing was just a load of fuss to generate clicks. Companies like Microsoft and Apple also have a significant amount at risk by this wayward legislation.

219 points by JDulin 15y ago

This HN title is inaccurate. There's no evidence that Microsoft or Apple actually supported SOPA. Merely an industry association of which they are members, supported it. This association removed its support. A more appropriate title would be "Business Software Alliance withdraws support for SOPA." I'm pretty sure most people on HN who know what SOPA is, know who the BSA is, and if not they'd learn it from reading the article. I don't think its fair to imply that Microsoft or Apple (or any of the other BSA members) supported SOPA, as it seems likely the BSA was engaging in knee jerk support and didn't consult its membership. I, personally, think the BSA should strongly opposes SOPA because it doesn't represent the interest of its member companies in the long run. But the title given here is just unfair.

shaggyfrog 15y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but why then was the "Business Software Alliance" supporting SOPA in the first place? I don't think "knee-jerk support" covers it. There's a political reason there, surely. If MS/Apple/whoever didn't like it, why weren't they publicly saying so?
- pyre 15y ago
  It's possible that it's all a politics game. Either some weird political stuff with the people that actually run the BSA or some idea like "Let's not speak out against this because it will hurt competitors like Google" (so they implicitly support it by not speaking out against the BSA's support of it).
- ugh 15y ago
  Maybe their previous strategy was fully backed by most of their members, maybe some members changed their opinion during the last days, maybe some members were always against their previous strategy, maybe the BSA acted somewhat autonomously until members started waking up, it’s hard to say. One thing I might be willing to infer from the change in direction is that there was no consensus before and that there still isn’t one. I think it’s very plausible that some members were always against and some always for the BSA’s strategy. Members seemingly also decided to solve this problem internally by lobbying for their position privately inside the BSA.
andrewfelix 15y ago
The BSA represents its members. How could that not possibly suggest complicit support?
- daeken 15y ago
  I'm an EFF member and strongly support the overall cause, but also strongly disagree with many of its initiatives and positions. I imagine the situation is similar with regards to the BSA and its members, as it is with any group.
  - andrewfelix 15y ago
    If the EFF announced support for a bill that would negatively change the entire landscape of the internet as we know it, would you still be a member of the EFF? Would you continue paying dues and remain silent on the issue?
    - alextgordon 15y ago
      And once enough of its members kicked up a fuss, it would probably change its position on that matter. Sound familiar?
      - andrewfelix 15y ago
        BSA's members only kicked up a fuss once people like you and I started making noise.
        alextgordon 15y ago
        Sure, but the point is that being a member of the BSA doesn't imply support of SOPA. Maybe it did yesterday, but it especially didn't a few weeks ago, before this whole thing received so much attention. The simplest explanation is that the members who were indifferent before, have changed their position in light of the recent "noise". But you can't work backwards and say that those members were originally in support of the bill.
tomlin 15y ago
> it seems likely the BSA was engaging in knee jerk support and didn't consult its membership. So, you're saying these companies aren't responsible for their actions because they stand behind an organization that they pay into? Must be nice. I wish I could haphazardly align myself with interest groups and just hope everything works out for me, but if it doesn't, have deniability.
JDulin 15y ago
I understand what you are saying and will try to make future HN posts more accurate. However, the BSA has been the only source of info as to what Apple, Microsoft, and most of the other association members have to say on SOPA. To my knowledge, none of the companies with BSA membership have made any independent statements[1] on the bill, and if so, certainly not on the scale Google did. * My hunch is that the BSA was created for a reason in addition to stopping copyright infringement: To represent these companies without their explicit support, just like any good lobbying company. If we are considering evidence as to what these companies' positions are, the BSA is the only source we have, and the fact most of them stand to gain from software licenses. [1] If anyone has seen a BSA member show opposition to SOPA in the past few weeks, I'd like to see. *Edit
- beagle3 15y ago
  Another example: RIAA - it does exactly what its member companies want, but they get to distance themselves. Similarly, the MPAA.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
Guilt by association. I didn't hear Apple or Microsoft threatening to withdraw funding for the BSA in light of this bill.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  And yet the BSA has revoked its support. Are you just mad because MS didn't 3-way you in when they called BSA to complain?
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    Personally I'm mad because Microsoft, Apple, and the rest haven't given an opinion one way or another. Without any official statements I can only assume that they were fully in support of the BSA's actions, but they are backpedaling in light of the public outcry.
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      the interesting thing about corporations having free speech rights is that one would expect that they might use them when standing up in cases like this. I would agree that Microsoft's silence here is probably tacit support.

shaggyfrog 15y ago

I guess the question that gets immediately raised in my mind is: what the heck were these companies doing supporting the damned thing in the first place? It's like the rats scattering when the light turns on. Is all of corporate America happy to support these egregious pieces of legislation as long as the public doesn't find out? That last part was mostly rhetorical... mostly.

pyre 15y ago
> It's like the rats scattering when the light turns on. Don't insult the rats.
danilocampos 15y ago
As I've said elsewhere, conservation of incompetence seems the likeliest explanation. The companies have better things to do, so no one in charge realizes that they're dues paying members of an organization that's advancing a truly moronic cause. Until the press gets involved, then things get escalated and straightened back out. Assuming that's in the neighborhood of truth, it highlights the importance of a press free from government and corporate interference.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  SOPA is pretty egregious, and it looks like it could get everyone in a lot of trouble given the way someone can merely allege copyright infringement and get a site blacklisted. Any company with a crucial web presence definitely does not have better things to than stop this bill from being passed.
antihero 15y ago
Well, it simply highlights the fact that whilst people may deceive themselves into thinking that what's good for companies is good for everyone (due to increasing of wealth and production), we realise that companies are in it for the people who run the companies, and if there so happens to be some downright abhorrent legislation that may benefit them, they'll support it until it becomes an issue where the net impact will be negative, due to bad press and the like. It's morality by committee.

rbanffy 15y ago

Interesting how fast they distance themselves from SOPA now they know we are paying attention. Won't fool me. I only hope the next SOPA, wich will certainly sound less outrageous, in special when compared to this, is met with equal opposition. SOPA is not commendable. Nor will be its offspring.

yumraj 15y ago

I think you mean "Adobe" and not "Apple", since "Apple" is not mentioned anywhere in that article.

webfuel 15y ago
According to this page (http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members.aspx http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members...) Apple is a member.
- donohoe 15y ago
  Yes, a member but it is not mentioned at all in this article. yumraj's original point still stands.
zb 15y ago
It's a reference to a previous article that specifically called out Microsoft and Apple as tacit SOPA supporters by virtue of their membership in the BSA.

danilocampos 15y ago

Can anyone on the inside explain how this kind of thing works? This is my thinking: These companies belong to different trade groups. They pay their dues, contribute opinions on different things, but mostly leave these groups alone and go on doing their actual business. Meanwhile, the trade groups advance their own agenda, given a mostly free hand by their constituency, which again, has better things to do. The group doesn't actually do all that much that's useful, otherwise their staff would be working for real companies. But they shuffle papers around, undertake activities like, say, harass small businesses about software licenses, and generally look like they have a reason for being. Then, occasionally, these groups will step in dogshit and have to field a bunch of phone calls basically saying "Why the fuck am I paying you dues in exchange for this bad press? Make it go away." And then the offending group needs to walk back the cat as happened in this blog post. Plausible? Is that how this works? The explanation with the most incompetence involved seems most likely to me.

ypcx 15y ago
I don't think we need to dig into specific technicalities of this, especially with our limited knowledge of the hidden, behind-the-curtain power structures. This law was specifically designed to create an internet weapon of suppression of the unwanted. Apple could have use this to suppress jail breaking. Microsoft could use this to suppress Linux. Lobbyists could use this to suppress the Occupy movement. The powers that be as such could use this to destroy the power internet gives to people, first time in history. However for some reason, they have miscalculated - they did not expect this kind of organization, backlash and opposition. Now they are just trying to distance themselves to save what's left of their images. The reason why they miscalculated is a mystery to me, perhaps they have realized they have let this "internet" thing go way too far, they cannot control it anymore using controlled disinformation techniques, and this was one of their last attempts to stop this trend. Yes, it's really that bad out there. But it's getting better.
- jka 15y ago
  Personally, I agree with all of the points you made here, except for the suggestion that we don't need to dig further. The SOPA bill (still) has a lot of potential to enable Internet censorship, and for something that far-reaching I think it's fairly important to be transparent about the various lobbying groups and their aims.

andrewfelix 15y ago

This is great news. I think HN and it's members probably helped a lot in making this happen. Give yourselves a pat on the back, you're enacting change!

tsotha 15y ago
Or at least preventing change that wouldn't have been good. But of course, this thing will be back next year, probably chopped up into little pieces and inserted into other bills.

bgentry 15y ago

The word in the title should be "Withdraw", not "Withdrawal"

bgentry 15y ago
An explanation would be appropriate if you're downvoting.
- james33 15y ago
  I up-voted you, that was the first thing I noticed when reading the title.

donohoe 15y ago

Wait a second - there is no mention of "Apple" at all in this article (or the one it references).

thomasgerbe 15y ago

"The definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions and what remedies are imposed must be tightened and narrowed." Glad he pointed out the obvious. (not being sarcastic)

Fice 15y ago

Get it rolling, and then distance yourself safely.

danssig 15y ago
That's pretty cynical. If big business is backing out, SOPA is dead. The people don't want it, the politicians don't care either way so long as they get money.

idspispopd 15y ago

This idea that BSA's view = Microsoft + Apple's view has always been an utterly ridiculous assumption for the press to make. This posting's title is equally ridiculous for directly equating the two. It's infantile and this kind of fact skewing doesn't belong on HN. BSA acts independently, but on behalf of it's members. BSA have proven themselves to be a bit nutty when it comes to infringement, so it wasn't surprising that they jumped on SOPA initially. However, as above, it was already a stretch by the press to connect BSA's view point on SOPA to the idea that all BSA members unanimously supported SOPA. This sudden change of face from BSA indicates that indeed the members have spoken up and they do not agree with SOPA, and that the entire thing was just a load of fuss to generate clicks. Companies like Microsoft and Apple also have a significant amount at risk by this wayward legislation.