No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
from the bad-reporting dept
Update: Netflix has confirmed through its official Twitter account that the PAC was not set up to support SOPA/PIPA.Okay, can we kill this story quickly? There's a ton of buzz going around claiming that Netflix has built up a Super PAC to promote a pro-SOPA agenda. As far as I can tell, this is simply not true. It started from a report in Politico, which mentioned (accurately) that Netflix had formed a PAC called FLIXPAC, and is getting much more aggressive in the lobbying/legislative front. This follows Netflix's trend of spending more and more on lobbying in the last few years: $20,000 in 2009, $130,000 in 2010 and $500,000 in 2011. Where it gets odd is that Politico tries to tie this to SOPA/PIPA by listing out those amounts and noting that the $500k in 2011 was spent "as legislative debates over the Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act and Video Privacy Protection Act raged."
In turn, the folks at RT played a game of bad reporter telephone and spun it into Netflix funding a pro-SOPA super PAC, "whose main goal is to promote SOPA-like legislation." I don't know what's up with the folks at RT. While their TV reporting can be quite good, their online reporting is abysmal at times. They clearly exaggerate stories or write from a position of ignorance.
The truth is that Netflix was basically neutral on SOPA, knowing that it had to balance its technology side and the fact that it is constantly negotiating with the big Hollywood studios on deals. Politically, it basically had to take a neutral position. But the company knows better than to out-and-out support really bad internet legislation. The company has been active on things like net neutrality and the Video Privacy Protection Act -- things that do have a direct impact on it. Sure, it would have been great if Netflix had been a strong anti-SOPA faction, the fact that it stayed neutral and is now ramping up its lobbying does not, in any way, mean that it's suddenly pushing for pro-SOPA legislation. The company appears to have a lot of other things on its legislative agenda.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Carry on, lobbyist. Hopefully you can keep getting gainful employment in the field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck Netflix.
They had a chance and they puked it as far as I am concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
of politics, but the answer is how they will view what is necessary. Their obvious disconnect with the end consumer gives me no confidence that if push comes to shove, they will make the right choice for the end customer. More likely, they will raise the costs and restrict their services, as they have shown to be their business plan so far. So for Netflix, just because they have not done political evil that we know of yet, doesn't mean they are not capable of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://twitter.com/#!/netflix/status/189485496366407680
PAC was NOT set up to support SOPA/PIPA: Netflix: Stories about our new PAC and SOPA are not true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How stupid do they think we are?
And when they're handing out $5000 cheques to politicians, they're doing it for what reason? For my own good?
Fuck Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How stupid do they think we are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How stupid do they think we are?
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gt0muj
There's been some speculation around the creation of FlixPAC. PACs are commonplace for leading companies in big, growing markets, and Netflix is no exception. We did not found FlixPAC for the purpose of supporting SOPA or PIPA. Instead, FlixPAC helps us engage in other issues including network neutrality, bandwidth caps, usage based billing and reforming the Video Privacy Protection Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How stupid do they think we are?
PRO?
Why do you think they changed their stance? Maybe fearing consumer backlash, they changed it to Neutral, then went behind closed doors to make a Superpac? Is that possible? Maybe you don't actually follow the companies history you are defending. I doubt you will admit you are wrong. I guess you have more in common with Hollywood than you thought?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How stupid do they think we are?
You know.. before you accuse someone of something, perhaps you could research it first. Just sayin'..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
"And in 2011, the company spent $500,000 lobbying Congress on topics such as: 'Telecommunications issues, Internet non-discrimination; Internet privacy, Intellectual property issues; Internet competition issues; H.R. 2471, Video Privacy Protection Act,' according to Senate lobbying disclosure records."
So far this, and that article, and Netflix's link to that article, are the only 3 things I see defending Netflix. My question if if they were neutral on SOPA and PIPA, as you state, what would be the purpose of spending any lobbying money on advancing a neutral position?
"Hi, I'm a lobbyist well paid by Netflix to lobby on Intellectual property issues and I just wanted to stop by and let you know we're neutral."
To me, that makes no sense. If you have another explanation, I'm all ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
They need to state what intellectual property issues they lobbied on in 2011, since they disclosed they did spent money on lobbying intellectual property issues in 2011.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
can't accept that Netflix is hiding something, and it would be
beneficial to the public to know what that is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
Just because you mom tells you to clean your room does not mean its her fault if you attempt to cleanse it with fire.
SOPA did not exist in any form at all when the offending letter was written, and they have not supported anything of the sort since. Therefore, you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
They never had an anti-SOPA stance either, specifically because it would not make their negotiations with Hollywood fruitful -- not that they are anyways -- but actually make it harder for them to obtain the necessary licenses for the movies they want to rent out to people.
Lrn2reserch these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
Sounds like the anti-SOPA platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $500K on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viral Outrage is Viral
Seriously, folks -- try reading for comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
The Intellectual property issues they disclosed they spent lobbying money on last year may, as hard as it might be to believe, have had nothing to do with SOPA/PIPA. But until they disclose what "Intellectual property issues" they spent lobbying money on (and again, they already disclosed they did), SOPA/PIPA seems the most likely candidate.
It may not be. But just shrugging and saying "OMGs you silly interwebs" or pointing to the article above specifying the non-intellectual property lobbying they did do isn't really an answer.
Please remember it was the PAC's disclosure that they spent money lobbying regarding intellectual property issues that turned folks eye towards them - and perhaps shoddy reporting exacerbated the hysteria, but the question still remains.
What part of the 500K was spent lobbying on Intellectual property issues, what were those issues, and what was Netflix's stance?
The answer may be completely innocent, and show this has all been mass-hysteria - but so far, I haven't seen anyone answer it yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
What would you consider proper disclosure in this case? Are you wanting a full line item accounting of every dollar spent on lobbying in the last 10 years with specific agendas tied to each one? Good luck getting that.
Personally, I am content with Netflix's comments and behavior today and trust them enough to not question why they are creating this PAC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
My frustration is that I have now seen this not just on RT, but on Forbes, Politico, all with the same stance. In looking for pro-Netflix articles, I have seen Netflix, this, and Silicon Beat - and Silicon Beat had the disclosure that seemed to indicate where this came from.
I disagree that this was "made up", and it seems to be stating they already spent money to lobby on intellectual property laws in a legal disclosure is an indication of where this firestorm started.
While SOPA may be dead, CISPA is breathing life into some of the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
So again, I think you are trying to retain your outrage despite the lack of facts backing it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
You know they spent money, but you don't know exactly for what.
You know RT and others are all too eager to make unsubstantiated claims since they don't actually provide any evidence for their claims.
You may or may not be aware of what kind of bias you have that makes you inclined to believe the worst without evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
The PAC hasn't received or given out any money yet, so how the hell could it have been the source for the information. I read the FEC filings, and there's nothing in there about the PAC's purpose.
This was a thumbsuck because the reporter had no clue about Netflix's agenda and assumed that they must be pro-SOPA (a dead piece of legislation) because that would be good for Netflix.
Stop making excuses for crock journalism and your propensity to believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous really are cowards
No credibility, I tell ya, no credibility. The Interwebs are sick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous really are cowards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anonymous really are cowards
No, only confident adults are comfortable doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anonymous really are cowards
The same way they issued it. You really had to ask that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sooner people quit reading RT the better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SuperPACs should be illegal to begin with, regardless of what cause they fight for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perspective - Lobbying Spending in 2010
Do you boycott MS, Google, Amazon, and Apple too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
We have WAY too many corporations with their hands in the lobby honeypot right now. They should damn well know better than to start a super pac without making it CRYSTAL CLEAR to the public and it's users what they are doing.
Why? This should be OBVIOUS. Corruption is running rampant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and other anti-censorship / spy laws. That would definitely get people to join back up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP portion of their lobbying. What direction are they going? Is that not relevant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Put on your tinfoil hats, folks, and come right up on stage! Come one, come all, get your FREE tinfoil hats right here folks, FREE tinfoil hats here! Come on and get them, it's not like we're going to be running out of them soon! Don't forget to sign up for our Conspiracy Theory network, conspiracy theories ALL The time, 24/7! Learn all about them folks, ALL about them and you'll get, get this, a free hat with every purchase!
Invite your friends, they too can join in on the conspiracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cite one. Just one. That's all I'm asking, which is pretty fucking lenient here considering how bad citing a single source is. Guess what? You can't. I know you can't, you know you can't, everyone else here knows you can't. Just drop it with the 'pro-SOPA' argument because we both know it's bullshit. We ALL know you're pulling fucks out of your ass in order to put forth some sort of company-wide conspiracy, complete with tinfoil hats and a nuclear winter bunker.
Until the facts state otherwise -- which they have not -- Netflix has never taken a pro-stance against SOPA. They take a neutral ground, as REQUIRED by their business model. If they took an anti-SOPA stance they would've suffered licensing issues from Hollywood, due to Hollywood's insistance on SOPA. If they did pro-SOPA, they would've taken a nosedive from the backlash, like GoDaddy, and customers would've been [rightly] pissed and refuse to use their service.
They are neutral. It would've been nice to see them go anti-SOPA but the way their business model works is like this:
If they took a stance against SOPA, Hollywood would see this as a prime example of opposition to their old, outdated BMs, which would incite them to be less trusting of Netflix, knowing that they do not find these anti-piracy measures acceptable, causing trust issues within the company. The executive monkey's would then take a stance -- either they would hike up the price of licensing fees to provide 'punishment' for Netflix in order to get those movies, or they would not offer them at all.
The pro to this is free publicity for Netflix on the internet, and customers would feel much more trusting of them as a whole.
If they had taken a pro-SOPA stance, the internet would've backlashed, boycotted or otherwise went against Netflix's decision either by protesting it [see: boycotting], which worked well for turning GoDaddy's stance, or they would look for alternative sources, making alternatives to Netflix a more thriving area, potentially. This would have a positive effect on Hollywood, as they would see the 'pirates' leaving for lesser services, either allowing them to lower the prices on licensing fees, giving a cut or what-have-you to Netflix, which wouldn't really help if it didn't have customers. Which it would, just not as many.
The neutral stance is literally the best options Netflix has. If it had ever taken a pro-SOPA and anti-SOPA stance, the internet would know it. There are no citations or sources for your bullshit claims, so I would kindly ask you to shut the fuck up until you provide a legitimate source.
I'm just sayin, you really really really need to research these things and cite some really good goddamn sources before anyone'll take your posts seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix's business is dead with restrictive caps on bandwidth when more and more devices are able to connect to the internet. It's dead with poor and expensive infrastructure providing internet access. It's dead when ISP's policing and restricting content or offering their brand premier content only or making it difficult to get to alternatives (like Netflix).
Rapidshare was listed as a rogue site in 2010; off the list in 2011 after investing in $150k into lobbying. It works. Any company not paying into the system is going to be suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The point here is that this struggle, between those who want to control the Internet and not merely deliver it, and those who want it to be open and un-tiered is not over. Netflix just reminded us of that fact. Yes, the company did reverse its stance on SOPA, claiming neutrality, """""after sending a letter to Congress agreeing with its spirit""""", but now it is back."
DO YOU FUCKING REMEMBER THAT NETFLIX HAD TO BE SHAMED OUT OF SUPPORTING SOPA? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm...public is against SOPA, so I will say I am Neutral, make a Superpac that will fund Pro-SOPA and then act like I did nothing of the sort, and you can't follow the trail because Superpacs are protected.
You guys defending Netflix aren't really that dumb are you? Seriously? Is streaming 9.99 a month with Netflix worth your soul?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're wrong about Netflix's stance.
Untrue. Look at the attached link. Netflix CHANGED to neutral after the SOPA protests.
Also, Netflix was strongly for SOPA before it changed on the 19th (The day AFTER the SOPA protest.)
(http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/9808-stop-online-piracy-act-s opa-overkill)
"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pushing for enactment as well, along with Macmillan Publishers, Netflix, Viacom, and trade-mark dependent companies such as Nike, L’Oreal, and Acushnet."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're wrong about Netflix's stance.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/netflix_hastings_does_sopa_flip_L3fVEHFu2bV8soHzFtQ3MN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're wrong about Netflix's stance.
But David Hirschmann, CEO of the Global IP Center at the US Chamber of Commerce,in Washington, told The Post, “Netflix sent a letter which was supportive of legislation that accomplished those [SOPA] goals.”
This is what you are constantly on about, BUT! The next two lines:
However, Netflix’s name was not on the list of 400 companies supporting SOPA provided to The Post yesterday.
A company spokesman said: “Netflix has not taken a position in SOPA. It is not correct to assume the company initially had a position.”
Seems to me that you did a full-stop one that letter that you still probably haven't read. The one that said 'piracy bad,' but said nothing about SOPA/PIPA since neither had even been announced. I know that reading EVERYTHING, and comprehending what others have written, is difficult, but it is critical to your stance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're wrong about Netflix's stance.
That's the actual letter that people grabbed the "SOPA supporters" from. The actual letter that you are so riled up about.
Lets see: Piracy is bad, pirate websites are bad for stealing, lets stop them.
Nope, I don't see anything about censorship (unless its censorship to arrest criminals and stop them from breaking the law). I see nothing about government control of the internet. I see nothing about arresting/fining common citizens for use of copywritten characters in such innocent things such as avatars.
As a matter of fact, if you read that letter and look at how things are already done, you realize this letter is not actually asking for ANYTHING NEW AT ALL. Its asking for more of what is already going on.
Also the letter was written 3 months before SOPA was.
SOPA was/is bad. No doubt. This letter had nothing to do with SOPA, no matter what the media says. If you don't believe me, THEN READ THE DAMN LETTER. Its tiny. Itsy bitsy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
NOT SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it really matter
This is why the US is so screwed up, because corporations are buying politicians.
I don't give a flying ballerina's ass why, I'm pissed they are doing it at all, and so should everyone in America.
Sometimes people can't see the forest thru the trees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't trust any of the fortune 500.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Anonymous now a front for the Chamber of Commerce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People say that Netflix supported the spirit of SOPA?
SOPA was about government control and censorship.
The letter that Netflix signed with 437 other companies? Was about stopping criminals.
Personal feelings aside (I torrent), adversity creates innovation. You shut down one service, a better one pops up, its been that way since online piracy has existed. The letter is adversity. So really, who cares?
SOPA however is another story completely. It would change the internet fundamentally. It would disney-fy the online world of which we live in, make it less real that it already is.
That letter has nothing to do with SOPA, further evidenced by the fact that it existed before SOPA was conceived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Super Pacs are illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Super Pacs are illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Super Pacs are illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever Netflix
I'm tried of corps using the money I pay them to buy laws, no matter what side they're on. That's not how it's suppose to work. What's the point of my vote if some corp backed PAC can just throw money at politicians and train them to roll over and beg like a good little dog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]