
Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly - bradmccarty
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/11/17/which-tech-companies-back-sopa-microsoft-apple-and-27-others/
======
naner
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>

~~~
steve-howard
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.

~~~
lukeschlather
>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.

Corporations are composed of people, and I expect people to act morally. Laws
are never going to properly capture morality, to put it another way legality
is a weak indicator of morality. I humbly submit that it's not OK to be a
sociopath in the service of a corporation, just because legally corporations
are allowed to be sociopaths. People are just people, and should use their
consciences.

~~~
guelo
Corporations' only moral code is greed. And I'm not talking abstractly, I've
been part of discussions at companies where people adamantly say it is wrong
to leave money on the table no matter what. The only time it is OK not to grab
all money you can is if it might prevent the company from grabbing even more
money in the future.

~~~
ericd
The REALLY long term game is helping your country be prosperous so that you
have an educated workforce to draw from and people and people and companies
wealthy enough to pay high prices for your products. That requires a pretty
pervasive altruistic/moral attitude to make it work, though... tragedy of the
commons and all that, otherwise.

~~~
steve-howard
Try selling national prosperity to shareholders.

~~~
ericd
It works fine for the buy and hold crowd...

------
rexf
It 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-a...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/16/google-facebook-twitter-and-
others-speak-out-against-the-stop/)

~~~
podperson
You 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...

~~~
nextparadigms
Does 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
Companies, 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.

~~~
slowpoke
That's correct. In these cases however, I think it's not unreasonable to side
with them, if only temporary. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, after
all. Sometimes it doesn't matter _why_ someone fights, it matters _who_ he/she
fights.

That doesn't mean you should abandon all reason and blindly trust them.
Actually, you should be wary and watch your back - if their interests change,
as you say, a company won't think twice and back-stab you without batting an
eye.

------
Alex3917
Based 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.

------
feralchimp
There'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
Apple 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.

~~~
billpatrianakos
The chamber of commerce is amateur hour to Apple whereas the BSA actually has
a bit of pull. There's a big difference.

------
luigi
Here's the Influence Explorer profile of the BSA:

[http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/business-
software-...](http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/business-software-
alliance/46874d0b98b747209ab536d1b2823e98)

------
ZipCordManiac
I 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 ?

------
caycep
Why 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
Possibly 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.

------
jvandenbroeck
Finally a list you can use as a computer science graduate to know for which
companies you are absolutely not going to work.

~~~
the-cakeboss
Why 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?

~~~
ericd
Many 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.

------
MBlume
This is pretty simple. If you work for one of those companies, quit.

~~~
mey
How 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.

~~~
throwaway64
What do you value more, freedom or material comfort?

~~~
mey
If 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.

------
dfc
Disclaimer: 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.

------
dmak
I am really worried for the future of the internet.

------
tzs

       Yeah, 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
All 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
Textbook logical fallacy.

~~~
shabda
1\. 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#Crit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance#Criticism)
[2]
[http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&...](http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false)
[3] <http://www.matasano.com/about/>

~~~
tptacek
Gah! 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.

~~~
rbanffy
Your boolean logic is flawless. Unfortunately, this is not what we are dealing
with.

Let's, for example, assume you generously donate a given sum every month, to
Greenpeace. According to you logic, nobody can say you support them.

Microsoft pays the fees required by their BSA membership and allow the entity
to brag abput their membership. The entity's charter is to defend the
interests of their members and one of the ways to do it is supporting SOPA.
How can anyone say, considering Microsoft's previous support to PIPA and their
support to BSA, that they don't support SOPA?

How likely is that Microsoft would chose not to comment and, at the same time,
be against SOPA? The odds of that are vanishingly small.

About the first part of your last message, you never kept it really secret ;-)

~~~
tptacek
That last sentence is contemptible. Sadly, it fits squarely into the mores of
HN commenters, a majority of whom care far less about the truth than they do
about whatever nerd narrative they happen to be infatuated with today.

~~~
rbanffy
OK. "Shill" is a bit too much, but you have to agree that, from your public
persona on HN, you appear to like them better than the average HN'er.

~~~
tptacek
In my life I have never had a computer that primarily booted into a Windows
OS.

~~~
rbanffy
Interesting. I'm afraid my on-line persona can be equally misleading.

~~~
tptacek
Contemptible.

------
incongruity
I 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.

------
andrewfelix
I 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.

------
idspispopd
This 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.

------
mlinksva
BSA 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.

------
AlexMuir
The 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
Downvoters, educate me! What's the issue here?

~~~
rhplus
I didn't downvote, but possibly it's because you're suggesting people build
webapps to compete with anti-virus firms, CAD/CAM vendors and a couple of
hardware manufacturers.

~~~
adriand
Interesting, because I would bet that there will be a serious web app
contender in the CAD sphere at some point. I'm not so sure the OP is off the
mark here.

~~~
the-cakeboss
Maybe someday, but I just can't see a web app that could seriously compete
with the likes of Adobe or Autodesk in the foreseeable future. While there are
online services that provide some of the features found in applications like
photoshop, they are hardly compelling enough to get any Adobe or Autodesk
customer to jump ship. Same goes for the like of Siemens and Mastercam, but
probably more so.

------
billpatrianakos
Over 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.

------
CyruzDraxs
It'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
"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
(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.

