Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling
from the well-look-at-that dept
So we were just discussing how a bunch of companies who were listed by the US Chamber of Commerce as SOPA/PIPA supporters are demanding to be taken off the list, noting that, while they had agreed to a generic statement about fighting the sale of counterfeit goods, they don't support crazy broad legislation like SOPA/PIPA. It seems that others listed as "supporting" SOPA are scrambling to get off the list as well. The Judiciary Committee's official list had included a bunch of big name law firms as being in support of the law as well -- which is a little strange, since law firms usually don't take official positions on things like this. They may express opinions on such matters on behalf of clients, but outright supporting legislation is a different ballgame altogether.A group of lawyers (most of whom have a long history of working with the entertainment industry) did send a letter to the Judiciary Committee to say that they agreed with Floyd Abrams' analysis of SOPA. That's it. They didn't say their firms supported SOPA -- and, in fact, there's an asterisk with the signatures noting that the names of their firms are solely for identification purposes. Yet the Judiciary Committee took those names anyway and put them on the supporters list. Expressing a legal opinion on a bill is extraordinarily different from supporting the bill. But the Judiciary Committee ignored that and listed them as supporters anyway.
From what we've heard, many of those law firms are not happy, and have been demanding removal from the Judiciary Committee's official list. Among those who have already complained/been taken off the official list are Morrison & Foerster, Davis Wright Tremaine, Irell & Manella, Covington & Burling. I would hope that the Judiciary Committee removes all the names and issues a rather public apology for blatantly including the names of firms who clearly made no statement in support of the proposed legislation. This is a pretty egregious move on the part of House Judiciary Committee staff. They're so eager to list supporters that they've been naming firms who do not support the bills. And then they've been using those claims to pretend there's widespread support...
So, between the US Chamber of Commerce stretching what many companies thought they were supporting and pretending it meant support for SOPA/PIPA, and the Judiciary Committee's over-eagerness to assume that a legal analysis of one part of the bill by a few lawyers meant their huge law firms supported the bill... it's looking like the facade of widespread corporate support for SOPA is crumbling pretty quickly...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: house judiciary committee, law firms, legal analysis, pipa, protect ip, sopa, support
Companies: covington & burling, davis wright tremaine, irell & manella, morrison & foerster, us chamber of commerce
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would say more this (and the Godaddy change) is proof that those who claim to want free speech the most are seemingly the most willing to shout and cause a ruckus until other people shut up and stop opposing them.
It's sad that anyone thinks of this stuff as a victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure, why not? Free speech includes the right to drown out the opposition if you have more voices - and the risk of being drowned out if you don't. That's not a free speech issue. When you go running to the government seeking laws that drown out the opposition, then it becomes one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seems pretty shady to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Harm to their business? What harm has been threatened beyond not doing business with companies that support legislation we don't like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tomato, Camaro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop deceiving yourself - we do - we have the vast majority of everyone who cares about these issues - it is you that is in the 0.01%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hahaha sure, fine, whatever. And for years I've been threatening this restaurant near my house to stop being shitty or else I'll continue not eating there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently they've come to the conclusion that there is sense in it.
So while I appreciate your rights, I must wholeheartedly disagree with your stance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> is proof that those who claim to want free
> speech the most are seemingly the most willing
> to shout and cause a ruckus until other people
> shut up and stop opposing them.
Aggressively advocating your position is not censorship. Asking the government to pass laws to shut people up is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now congresscritters are a different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What new kind of retarded sophistry is this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm placing my bets this apology will never happen; in fact, I'm going all in on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Chamber of Commerce is evil
I don't even think they have half of the support they think they have-and the more people become aware of that fact, the better. It will finally uncover what the lie was in the first place: that SOPA would get passed easily.
Now it doesn't look so easy, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come on Marcus, buck up and stop being a schmuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now who's the one writing bad poetry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice try Marcus, but you are still a schmuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did I say they joined the opposition?
No, I'm pointing out that the "desperation" to find supporters is clearly on the SOPA side, since that's the side that has been exposed as misrepresenting who supports them on more than one occasion.
but you are still a schmuck.
You need to buy a thesaurus dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if the costs of licensing that trademarked material would be over $2,500.00...
Book 'em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a suggestion
http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-sopa-opponents-should-worry-a bout/
What everyone who has a twitter account could do is name one or two of these companies-shame them publicly..and keep on doing it.
Eventually they'll want to be taken off the list. It's one way of making them pay for being stupid in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's even less of a good idea to upset a bunch of lawyers.
Managing to do both seems to me a very unwise course of action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course it wouldn't take long before a lot of people find ways to circumvent all the restrictions, and the whole 'Piracy' thing will go underground where it will be 10 times harder to detect. Is that what you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Rekrul on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:06pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"In our considered opinion, the Protect IP Act and SOPA further the goal of free expression. Far from conflicting with the First Amendment, the proposed legislation will serve as an important contribution to ensuring an environment in which free speech and creative expression can thrive and flourish."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They expressed no opinion on any other issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By turning all Internet users into criminals? Everything on the Internet is copyright by default, so if it is illegal to download anything copyright from the Internet, then even downloading and displaying a web page (copyright by default even without a notice) is a criminal act.
Is that what you want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
Most internet companies have taken no public position on SOPA. Some have. Those that have taken a pro-SOPA position should be prepared to face the consequences, in the form of lost revenue, because the vast majority of informed Americans despise this turd of legislation.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech. GoDaddy, MoFo, UMG, et. al. are perfectly free to take whatever position on this or any other piece of legislation, for whatever reason they choose. That's freedom. Expecting to be able to take a public position, without affecting the opinions of the public? That's lunacy.
I'm free to take my business to a company that better represents my values (or at least doesn't actively fight against them), and I'm free to suggest that other people should to. That's also freedom.
Nobody's trying to drown out GoDaddy or Fox or any other supporter's position on the matter. If anything, we're trying to make sure that every one of their customers knows who their money goes to, so those customers can make an informed decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only copy of anything I have seen emanating from Congress is the list of co-sponsors of the Senate and House bills.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder when the letter written by the named counsel came to your attention. I certainly hope it was very recently (as within the past day or two).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a PDF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is the House Judiciary Commitee version.
Again, a PDF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supporters list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Supporters list
As far as I can tell, the links are identical. But mine no longer functions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Supporters list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Supporters list
I found the new one (#45) after the old one stopped functioning. It should be noted that the new and old lists are NOT identical, and the old one contained both GoDaddy (absent from new one) and the lawfirms (something and Burlington, to name one).
The new list was amended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Supporters list
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html
Weird how they don't list a single one of the many, many entities who wrote letters opposing the bill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chamber of Secrets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does seem a bit strange that firms who are not listed would want to be de-listed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It does seem a bit strange that firms who are not listed would want to be de-listed.
No, it's not weird. If you bothered to *READ* you would have seen that the Judiciary Committee admitted to totally fucking up and removed all those law firms names.
Just because you're too slow to figure out how to use the web and to have found the list before Judiciary fixed it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70824.html
For someone who always tries to act like you know everything, I'm beginning to wonder if you know anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Law firms that represent clients with divergent sets of interests obviously do not go on record supporting specific legislation. Hence, I found it somewhat surprising that there was purportedly a "list" reflecting support. All I found from your article was a letter from certain named attorneys expressing support of Mr. Abrams' analysis of the First Amendment as it pertains to the pending bills. Supporting a legal analysis of a specific issue is not the same as supporting the entirety of the bills.
You will note I made an inquiry as to when the letter from the named attorneys first came to your attention. I did so in the fervent hope that you had just learned about it. Otherwise it would have called into question some of your earlier comments that a ton of attorneys were aligned against Mr. Abrams' analysis, and that Mr. Abrams' seemed to be the only one opining that the pending bills do not rul afoul of the First Amendment. Apparently this is not the case, and if this was known to you for some appreciable length of time their letter should have been mentioned.
Correctly stated so as not to mislead others, it should have been stated that there is not universal agreement on the First Amendment issue, with some asserting that the bills do run afoul of the law, and others asserting that it does not. An unbiased article would have made this very point and presented you as being an honest broker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I provided a link to the letter which was relevant. In past articles I provided links to those who had compiled the list.
Providing the link directly to the Judiciary page was pointless, since they were already removing the names.
You will note I made an inquiry as to when the letter from the named attorneys first came to your attention. I did so in the fervent hope that you had just learned about it. Otherwise it would have called into question some of your earlier comments that a ton of attorneys were aligned against Mr. Abrams' analysis, and that Mr. Abrams' seemed to be the only one opining that the pending bills do not rul afoul of the First Amendment. Apparently this is not the case, and if this was known to you for some appreciable length of time their letter should have been mentioned.
I had missed your question. I learned of the letter on Thursday night, did the research on Friday morning and posted the story then.
Why you assumed otherwise, and went on to accuse me of not being an honest broker, is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your mention of when the letter came to your attention lays that possibility to rest. After all, it is hard to talk about something if you are not aware it exists.
You did link the letter by the attorneys, but the "list" was not linked. This is what took me some time to find, and apparently even then it had been changed to omit some names. What surprised me about the "list", and why I took the time to look for it, is that law firms (including mine when I was in private practice) simply do not, except in the rarest of circumstances, ever lend the firm's name in support of pending legislation.
With this said, I hope I clarified my remarks to your satisfaction.
BTW, and in all sincerity, I do wish you and your family a joyous holiday. I know it never snows in the Santa Clara Valley, but perhaps if you close your eyes and imagine it to be so it will be so. Otherwise, you can go outside with your children and do as we do in Florida...make angels in the grass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott all SOPA sponsors
60 Plus Association
ABCAlliance for Safe Online Pharmacies (ASOP)
American Federation of Musicians (AFM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
Americans for Tax Reform
Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies
Association of Talent Agents (ATA)
Baker & Hostetler LLP
Beachbody, LLC
BMI-BMG Chrysalis
Building and Construction Trades Department
Capitol Records NashvilleCBS
Cengage Learning
Christian Music Trade Association
Church Music Publishers� Association
Coalition Against Online Video Piracy (CAOVP)
Comcast/NBC Universal
Concerned Women for America (CWA)
Congressional Fire Services Institute
Copyhype
Copyright Alliance
Coty, Inc.
Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB)
Council of State Governments
Country Music Association
Country Music Television
Covington & Burling LLP
Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP
Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.
Creative America
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Deluxe
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Disney Publishing Worldwide, Inc.
Elsevier
EMI Christian Music Group
EMI Music Publishing
ESPN
Est�e Lauder Companies
Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)
Go Daddy
Gospel Music Association
Graphic Artists Guild
Hachette Book Group
HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, Inc.
Hyperion
Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees (IATSE)
International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
International Trademark Association (INTA)
International Union of Police Associations
Irell & Manella LLP
Jenner & Block LLP
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP
Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP
L�Oreal
Lathrop & Gage LLP
Loeb & Loeb LLP
Lost Highway Records
Macmillan
Major County Sheriffs
Major League Baseball
Majority City Chiefs
Marvel Entertainment, LLC
MasterCard Worldwide
MCA Records
McGraw-Hill Education
Mercury Nashville
Minor League Baseball (MiLB)
Minority Media & Telecom Council (MMTC)
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
Moving Picture Technicians
MPA � The Association of Magazine Media
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators
National Association of State Chief Information Officers
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
National Center for Victims of Crime
National Crime Justice Association
National District Attorneys Association
National Domestic Preparedness Coalition
National Football League
National Governors Association, Economic Development and Commerce Committee
National League of Cities
National Narcotics Offers� Associations� Coalition
National Sheriffs� Association (NSA)
National Songwriters Association
National Troopers Coalition
News Corporation
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Pearson Education
Penguin Group (USA), Inc.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
Phillips Nizer, LLP
Pfizer, Inc.
Proskauer Rose LLP
Provident Music Group
Random House
Raulet Property Partners
Republic Nashville
Revlon
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP
Scholastic, Inc.
Screen Actors Guild (SAG)
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Showdog Universal Music
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Sony/ATV Music Publishing
Sony Music Entertainment
Sony Music Nashville
State International Development Organization (SIDO)
The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO)
The Perseus Books Groups
The United States Conference of Mayors
Tiffany & Co.
Time Warner
Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)
UMG Publishing Group Nashville
United States Chamber of Commerce
United States Tennis Association
Universal Music
Universal Music Publishing Group
ViacomVisa, Inc.
W.W. Norton & Company
Warner Music Group
Warner Music Nashville
White & Case LLP
Wolters Kluewer Health
Word Entertainmen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy
google mike mozart & sopa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.... What did they expect ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]