

Companies supporting SOPA: their web address, Twitter, contact email and phone - gasull
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmGJz_37ojoqdFZhYlBhN2hQOGRoN2R0ZGh3VDZlblE&output=html

======
ypcx
OK, both Visa and MasterCard are on the list. What other choices do I have for
generic electronic payments in the EU? Not that I was harboring any love for
these companies at all.

Secondly, how does a company get on this list? I'd believe they have to put
their money behind the lobbyists rooting for SOPA. Then, how does a company
get removed from the list? Does the lobbyist give their money back? Off course
they don't. So staying on the list it is.

------
dpe82
Most (all?) of the law firms that had been on the original list have been
removed. I see you mark them as needing confirmation. Here's confirmation for
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP:

<http://twitter.com/#!/DWTLaw/status/150019649130606592>

~~~
gasull
> _I see you mark them as needing confirmation._

It is a crowdsourced list I found on Slashdot:
[http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/24/0035250/crowdsourced-...](http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/24/0035250/crowdsourced-
list-of-sopa-supporters) I didn't take part on compiling it.

I think all this info is public and available elsewhere, but people compiled
it and put it together in a Google spreadsheet.

------
ajays
I was surprised to the Fraternal Order of Police, and other such police
organizations on the list. What are they afraid of, that someone will clone a
cop? Or are the supporting this bill because, hey, more laws means more cops
for law enforcement, right?

~~~
reinhardt

      You wouldn't steal a car
      you wouldn't steal a handbag
      you wouldn't steal a television,
      you wouldn't steal a movie.
    

Online piracy is a crime, m'cay?

~~~
chrischen
If we made laws that protected the uniqueness of first names to artificially
boost the name creating industry, stealing names would become a crime as well.
Name theft in the sense of the law would be theft but it wouldn't be like
stealing a car, because stealing a car would have negative repercussions even
if it were legal.

Enforcing everyone has unique names might have a high enforcement cost, which
is why it may not be worth cost to society. Likewise enforcing copyright for
consumer use has become harder and harder as well and at some point it won't
be worth it either. Enforcing property laws however is cheap because it's hard
for everyone to mass-steal cars and protect their own property.

~~~
reinhardt
Apparently my sarcasm wasn't totally obvious. Well that's Poe's law for me I
guess.

~~~
chrischen
Oh sorry, at least we collectively will catch everybody.

------
archgoon
And at the bottom:

Xerox.

I find this to be ironic.

~~~
easy_rider
I laughed :) Maybe they want to be Gods? Now they have the power to destroy
their creation for once.

------
cottonseed
Zippo? Weird.

~~~
Maxious
Seems like a whole bunch of big name brands were told by the chamber of
commerce that they were signing on to oppose the sale of counterfeit
merchandise online. Which you know they aren't unless they're planning to SOPA
shutdown eBay.

~~~
ypcx
They will be more careful next time. Also, there are interests behind many of
these. One rich group could spawn dozen of various "alliances" and
"associations", just to hide behind diversity. The money flying here are
billions, so how much does them cost to run 20 agencies each with 2 or 3
people employed?

------
easy_rider
just when i wanted to get a new pair of Oakley's ;(

------
drhowarddrfine
I have not been convinced SOPA is a bad thing. I read the bill and all the
chicken little posts around the web and even asked someone to show me the
basis of their fear. I have never received any response beyond the chicken
little screams of terror.

I admit I may be missing something. I've explained my point of view from what
I've read. All I hear in response ranges from the whole internet will crash
down upon our heads to every site in existence today will be taken down and
sued to everybody's going to die cause they can't get their Canadian medicine.

Such fantastic psychotic episodes only lead to my cynicism.

~~~
dazbradbury
Perhaps you've not read any of the well written posts about the bill. Here is
a start:

<http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/dont-break-internet>

And not that it's a means to basis your entire belief on, but look at the
people opposing this bill, and what they have to say:

[http://dq99alanzv66m.cloudfront.net/sopa/img/12-14-letter.pd...](http://dq99alanzv66m.cloudfront.net/sopa/img/12-14-letter.pdf)

~~~
rmgraham
The second paragraph of the stanfordlawreview.org link is pretty succinct:

"To begin with, the bills represent an unprecedented, legally sanctioned
assault on the Internet’s critical technical infrastructure. Based upon
nothing more than an application by a federal prosecutor alleging that a
foreign website is “dedicated to infringing activities,” Protect IP authorizes
courts to order all U.S. Internet service providers, domain name registries,
domain name registrars, and operators of domain name servers—a category that
includes hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses, colleges,
universities, nonprofit organizations, and the like—to take steps to prevent
the offending site’s domain name from translating to the correct Internet
protocol address. These orders can be issued even when the domains in question
are located outside of the United States and registered in top-level domains
(e.g., .fr, .de, or .jp) whose operators are themselves located outside the
United States; indeed, some of the bills’ remedial provisions are directed
solely at such domains."

