> really bad parts here too, like describing SOPA Yep. I think any article that describes SOPA as merely "placin[ing] restrictions on the sale of pirated music

> really bad parts here too, like describing SOPA Yep. I think any article that describes SOPA as merely "placin[ing] restrictions on the sale of pirated music and movies" is begging to be criticized, especially here on HN. It makes you wonder what else it gets wrong! On the Post's SOPA point: First, it's been illegal to sell pirated works since the Copyright Act of 1790, as amended. Second, it's been a felony to distribute (as in, not selling but merely sharing) pirated works since the NET Act of 1998. Third, as far as I can tell, Google has no problem with those long-standing restrictions on the sale of pirated music and movies. Fourth, that "restrictions" language mischaracterizes the many unrelated problems with SOPA. I can tell the Post put a lot of work into the article, and it was a good read, even though it buried the lede (Microsoft's PAC is larger), made factual errors (companies don't donate to PACs), missed a big reason Google was able to reach out to libertarian/conservative groups (it toned down its misguided lobbying for aggressive Net neutrality regs/laws), spent too much time on a conference barely distinguishable from dozens of others (organized by an academic center that had for years publicly disclosed it received funding from Google), and claimed that limiting government surveillance draws "unexpected bedfellows" (left-right pro-4A coalitions linking ACLU and conservatives date back at least 20 years). Disclaimer: I know most of the folks interviewed in this article and spent a decade in DC. Fortunately I'm now in the SF bay area and doing something rather more productive. :)