Can anyone on the inside explain how this kind of thing works?<p>This is my thinking:<p>These companies belong to different trade groups. They pay their dues, contribute opinions on different things, but mostly leave these groups alone and go on doing their actual business.<p>Meanwhile, the trade groups advance their own agenda, given a mostly free hand by their constituency, which again, has better things to do. The group doesn't actually do all that much that's useful, otherwise their staff would be working for real companies. But they shuffle papers around, undertake activities like, say, harass small businesses about software licenses, and generally look like they have a reason for being.<p>Then, occasionally, these groups will step in dogshit and have to field a bunch of phone calls basically saying "Why the fuck am I paying you dues in exchange for this bad press? Make it go away."<p>And then the offending group needs to walk back the cat as happened in this blog post.<p>Plausible? Is that how this works? The explanation with the most incompetence involved seems most likely to me.
I guess the question that gets immediately raised in my mind is: what the heck were these companies doing supporting the damned thing in the first place?<p>It's like the rats scattering when the light turns on. Is all of corporate America happy to support these egregious pieces of legislation as long as the public doesn't find out?<p>That last part was mostly rhetorical... <i>mostly</i>.
Interesting how fast they distance themselves from SOPA now they know we are paying attention. Won't fool me. I only hope the next SOPA, wich will certainly sound less outrageous, in special when compared to this, is met with equal opposition. SOPA is not commendable. Nor will be its offspring.
This idea that BSA's view = Microsoft + Apple's view has always been an utterly ridiculous assumption for the press to make. This posting's title is equally ridiculous for directly equating the two. It's infantile and this kind of fact skewing doesn't belong on HN.<p>BSA acts independently, but on behalf of it's members. BSA have proven themselves to be a bit nutty when it comes to infringement, so it wasn't surprising that they jumped on SOPA initially.<p>However, as above, it was already a stretch by the press to connect BSA's view point on SOPA to the idea that all BSA members unanimously supported SOPA.<p>This sudden change of face from BSA indicates that indeed the members have spoken up and they do not agree with SOPA, and that the entire thing was just a load of fuss to generate clicks.<p>Companies like Microsoft and Apple also have a significant amount at risk by this wayward legislation.
"The definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions and what remedies are imposed must be tightened and narrowed."<p>Glad he pointed out the obvious. (not being sarcastic)
This is great news. I think HN and it's members probably helped a lot in making this happen. Give yourselves a pat on the back, you're enacting change!
This HN title is inaccurate. There's no evidence that Microsoft or Apple actually supported SOPA. Merely an industry association of which they are members, supported it. This association removed its support.<p>A more appropriate title would be "Business Software Alliance withdraws support for SOPA."<p>I'm pretty sure most people on HN who know what SOPA is, know who the BSA is, and if not they'd learn it from reading the article.<p>I don't think its fair to imply that Microsoft or Apple (or any of the other BSA members) supported SOPA, as it seems likely the BSA was engaging in knee jerk support and didn't consult its membership.<p>I, personally, think the BSA should strongly opposes SOPA because it doesn't represent the interest of its member companies in the long run. But the title given here is just unfair.