If the media companies were bribing these clowns with billions of dollars, that would be one thing... but some of the people who signed that open letter probably spend more than $2,000,000 on lunch.
Otherwise politicians will reduce some of the bill, but the bill will still implement more and more Internet controls .
Of course, some of this country's largest ISPs probably like SOPA and similar legislation because they see it as strengthening their larger source of revenue: cable television.
I don't think they did (or would.)
Cerf isn't a google officer, board member, or spokesperson. Those are the folks who "speak for Google".
"Dear Congresscritters, we made the internet. It is now everywhere. If you pit the full force of the law against it -- the law will lose. Do not make yourselves irrelevant."
This is a losing battle on the part of the IP rights holders. In many ways, that's depressing. But even if they said, "pirate movies and we'll kill you," it still wouldn't stop the signal. All of these laws and treaties are bandaid hacks to stem the tide. Ultimately they won't win, though it may be messy along the way if they try to govern without understanding this.
Regardless, I don't think the willful infringers are the most interesting group here. If user generated content really does lead to sites getting shut down in an unreasonable way (which is probably unlikely to actually happen), I think it's those groups that would be leading the charge to a next gen network, not the infringers.
(I wonder how many legislators learn at least a little bit of game theory)
Wouldn't SOPA's effects on DNS be negated by simply hosting your sites' DNS and setting your machines' DNS servers outside the US? Of course this would have major negative impact on DNS performance.
Unfortunately, not so. e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8030467/Inter...
The Digital Economy Act he is complaining about in that article - which, like SOPA, included provisions for national censorship in the name of copyright - passed by a large majority. Most MPs were not present for the debate, but simply voted according to their party line.
That's the case in UK politics. The 'party whip' is used, and only in uncommon cases is a 'free vote' allowed.
EDIT: Just realized he is British (thanks to the other reply). Do you believe his silence (if any, again I can't find much on his stance) relates to his citizenship?
This topic is probably the first thing they've all ever agreed on.