
Microsoft, Apple and Others Withdrawal Support for SOPA - JDulin
http://informationweek.com/news/government/policy/232200069
======
danilocampos
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
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
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.

------
shaggyfrog
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_.

~~~
danilocampos
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
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.

------
rbanffy
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.

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

~~~
bgentry
An explanation would be appropriate if you're downvoting.

~~~
james33
I up-voted you, that was the first thing I noticed when reading the title.

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

~~~
webfuel
According to this page
([http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members...](http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members.aspx))
Apple is a member.

~~~
donohoe
Yes, a member but it is not mentioned at all in this article.

yumraj's original point still stands.

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

------
idspispopd
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.

------
thomasgerbe
"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)

------
andrewfelix
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
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.

------
Fice
Get it rolling, and then distance yourself safely.

~~~
danssig
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.

------
nirvana
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
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?

~~~
ugh
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.

