Gibson Guitar & Others On SOPA Supporters List Say They Never Supported The Bill

Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling

from the well-look-at-that dept

Fri, Dec 23rd 2011 10:24am — Mike Masnick

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

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:30am

I wonder if these will be considered weenies too by our usual suspect(s).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pixelation, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:30am

Rats leaving a sinking ship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:37am

"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."

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 thread ]
MrWilson, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:39am

Re:
Lawyers are such weenies for being lawyers by pointing out the technical difference between an individual and their law firm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:43am

US Chamber of Commerce is evil
They've been behind a lot of crap lately-the elections of Tea Party governors, and general Republican garbage. That they're also doing this is not as surprising as the fact that they're lying about all this rumored support from established companies that had no clue they were on that list.

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 thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:50am

This is especially sweet coming only a few hours after that AC who has a crush on me accused YOU of "desperation" in finding people on your side of the SOPA fence :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:07am

Re:
I do think they are being very weenie like, but that seems to be the nature of lawyers.

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 thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:12am

Re: Re:
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

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 thread ]
Heretic3e7, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:14am

So... People within the Judiciary Committee used the trademarked names of companies without their permission?

I wonder if the costs of licensing that trademarked material would be over $2,500.00...

Book 'em!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:17am

Re: 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.

Aggressively advocating your position is not censorship. Asking the government to pass laws to shut people up is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:21am

Re: Re:
There is democracy in the fact that the majority can speak louder than the minority -- because they have more voices. That's how you elect presidents, after all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FM Hilton, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:26am

Here's a suggestion
Here's the full list of every company that publicly signed that letter to Congress in September:
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:34am

Re: Re:
You mean like how the mainstream media uses their government imposed monopoly power to brainwash the public with their self interested, one-sided (pro-IP) opinion while censoring any dissent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loki, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:37am

Ya know, it is usually not a good idea to upset a bunch of tech nerds.

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:53am

Re: Re:
Uh.....WHAT!!?!?? Did you seriously just suggest that our voicing opposition to SOPA (for some reason termed shouting by you) proves we're AGAINST free speech?

What new kind of retarded sophistry is this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:54am

Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you have more voices. It's more a question of 1% at one end shouting down everyone else. Moreover, it's threatening people with harm to their business if they don't agree with you.

Seems pretty shady to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:55am

Re:
What is sweet about it? We are still talking 0.000001% of the population. How sweet is that?

Come on Marcus, buck up and stop being a schmuck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Moreover, it's threatening people with harm to their business if they don't agree with you."

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:03pm

Re:
I should also say asking to have their names removed from the list is a long way from joining the opposition. It sounds more like they want to appear neutral so they can take money from both sides later.

Nice try Marcus, but you are still a schmuck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:06pm

While I'm glad for any decrease in the SOPA support, I can't help thinking that the only reason the law firms don't support SOPA is that it would eliminate the need for a lot of copyright related lawsuits if the corporations can just shut the web sites down instead of suing (the sites and the users).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are right oh my havens.

LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say shady, I say free will.

Tomato, Camaro...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
speedplane (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:21pm

These law firms are pulling their endorsements? This is actually what they said:

"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 thread ]
Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why hello there, capitalism hater! Welcome to America, do enjoy your stay! (though the rampant capitalism might be too much for you)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tox, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:35pm

"it's threatening people with harm to their business if they don't agree with you."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:51pm

Frankly, I would like to see an official copy of this "list" to which you refer.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:54pm

Re:
The only point being made in the letter is that the named idividuals were expressing agreement with the legal analysis proferred by Mr. Abrams regarding the First Amendment.

They expressed no opinion on any other issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:56pm

(most of whom have a long history of working with the entitlement industry)

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you have more voices.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
You forget the ridiculous Electoral College. There is no law, rule, what have you that the Electoral College actually elect the highest vote getter.

Now congresscritters are a different matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 1:09pm

Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil
I would also love to see an investigation that reveals the corruption of washington.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 2:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
A boycott is the perfect example of both free speech and capitalism at its finest. Don't like it? Russia and China are that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 2:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's threatening people with harm to their business if they don't agree with you.

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 thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 2:13pm

Re: Re:
buck up and stop being a schmuck.

Now who's the one writing bad poetry?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim Ellis, 23 Dec 2011 @ 2:15pm

Chamber of Secrets
The Chamber of Commerce was lying? Goodness, what a surprise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 2:17pm

Re: Re:
I should also say asking to have their names removed from the list is a long way from joining the opposition. It sounds more like they want to appear neutral so they can take money from both sides later.

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 thread ]
Killercool (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 2:57pm

Re:
Here's that list for you.

It's a PDF.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killercool (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re:
Sorry about that. That was the US Chamber of Commerce version.

This is the House Judiciary Commitee version.

Again, a PDF.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
Link returns the infamous "Page not found".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:07pm

Re:
Why not just shut down the entire Internet? That would get rid of the whole problem. That's about what SOPA/PIPA is going to do anyway, if it becomes law.

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 thread ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:15pm

Re:
"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."

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 thread ]
Doh, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:39pm

Bets
My bets are that the government gets sued for slander, libel, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doh, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:43pm

Re: Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil
So, how do we get the investigation started?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doh, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:48pm

Lost revenue
So, I couldn't find a toll-free number, but I would bet if you call (480) 505-8877 and talk to them at length about, oh, wanting to sign up or something, it will also cost them money. This is stated rhetorically, because I would never advocate such a modest proposal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:05pm

Re: Supporters list
The list has been amended and moved here: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killercool (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:09pm

Re: Re: Supporters list
so... weird.

As far as I can tell, the links are identical. But mine no longer functions...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bjupton (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
I don't know if Marcus is a schmuck, but it's clear that this A/C is a textbook schlemiel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Supporters list
Thank you for trying. #45's link got me through, and from there I was able to trace the names on the list to another page on the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:56pm

A couple of persons above were kind enough to direct to to the "list". Given the subject of this article, I expected to find the names of law firms on it. Curiously, I did not see any.

It does seem a bit strange that firms who are not listed would want to be de-listed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Supporters list
Yours contains "Rouge%20Webites" and "SOP%20A". It is identical to one I found on an earlier gizmodo article.

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 thread ]
Karl (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:36pm

Re: Re: Supporters list
The page that links to all this stuff is here:
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they're grown up, they can think for themselves and consider whether or not the 1% loudmouths have something reasonable in their argument.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:48pm

Boycott all SOPA sponsors
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 thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 2:07am

Re:
A couple of persons above were kind enough to direct to to the "list". Given the subject of this article, I expected to find the names of law firms on it. Curiously, I did not see any.

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

�Firms are livid. This is a major screw-up, and it could hurt our reputation,� said one firm official who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak on the record. �Judiciary owes us an explanation.�

After reviewing the list, a Judiciary Committee aide confirmed that some firms were erroneously included. The aide said the list has since been updated on the committee�s website, although one version of it remained uncorrected as of press time.

�The listing of the law firms was a mistake made at the staff level of the committee,� the committee said in a statement to POLITICO. �Once we were made aware of the mistake, we immediately removed the list of supporters from the website and revised the document. Our staff has been in contact with several of the firms and made them aware of our efforts to remedy the mistake.�

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2011 @ 7:37am

Re: Re:
It would have saved me research time had you simply provided the above link in your original article.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2011 @ 8:06am

Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil
It isn't "Republicans". SOPA is a thoroughly bipartisan travesty. How about looking beyond your Skinner-box-level political "philosophy", just once?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 9:42am

Re: Re: Re:
It would have saved me research time had you simply provided the above link in your original article.

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 thread ]
Dave, 24 Dec 2011 @ 10:48am

Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil
Totally disagree with you. Look at most of the republicans supporting this. They are big gov types. We call them RINOS...or NeoCons.. All my tea-party friends are against this abomination. Why? We are worried that the likes of Obama and his ilk will use it to censor our views!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2011 @ 10:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I regret not being as clear as I should have been. My only point was that if the letter had been known to you for an extended period of time, then it that case it would have called into question some of your prior articles.

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 thread ]
tmc, 24 Dec 2011 @ 2:53pm

This guy
This guy is also making the rounds exposing the lies told by the old media industry in their 10+ years long battle against new media and the internet.

google mike mozart & sopa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lemmingseo2, 25 Dec 2011 @ 2:07pm

"From what we've heard, many of those law firms are not happy, and have been demanding removal from the Judiciary Committee's official liste"

.... What did they expect ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wally (profile), 31 Dec 2011 @ 12:43pm

Response to: Rekrul on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:06pm
Agreed. EA and Nintendo have both fully dropped support of the bill. It seems that it wasn't just certain Law Firms added to the "official list". The letter sent to companies specifically asked if they were against Piracy and made no mention of the entirety of the bill in the letter except the rhetoric of its supporters. Only specific sections were shown to appease specific companies opposition toward piracy. In legal terms this is known as legal misrepresentation and therefore makes the USCOC and the judiciary committee liable for lawsuit. I'm surprised no company has dared try that yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Le ouistiti est dans la place, 24 Apr 2012 @ 7:42am

I found the new one 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 ouistitiGoDaddy
[ link to this | view in thread ]