Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day • Hacker News Board

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#91

Post by dextorious » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:39 PM UTC

mekoka wrote: post #58

marshray wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs. There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash. I consider them un-American traitors.

Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs. Your assumption is that if someone doesn't buy knock offs, they'll buy the real thing. Until that can be proven true, I think a better reformulation which more accurately translates the greed of these corporations is Because they feel they're not making more money due to counterfeit knock offs . The companies themselves aren't actually losing anything.

"""Your assumption is that if someone doesn't buy knock offs, they'll buy the real thing. Until that can be proven true"""

I keep hearing that argument in discussions about counterfeiting/piracy. Does it convince anyone?

Yes, lots of people would buy the real thing X if there was no way to buy X's knock offs.

It only depends on a) how much they want something X-like and b) the relative price.

If (1) something X-like is desirable, and (2) the price of X's knock offs is near the price of X (so that people not affording X at all is not an issue), then people WOULD buy the original if they couldn't get a cheaper knockoff.

Does even one person's money lost qualify the issue as "proven"?

Because I know that I have downloaded albums and books that I would DEFINITELY have bought if I could not get them for free of the intertubes.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#92

Post by Patrick_Bateman » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:42 PM UTC

Boom, headshot.

Mmmmmaybe these companies are all so clueless that they think it's a good idea. Far more likely, they know what they're doing is bad, but choose to do it anyway because there's no downside for them.

It's like people who are deliberate assholes in public because they (correctly) gamble that no one will risk punching them in the face.

Well I for one fully support punching SOPA supporters in the face. This is as good a start as any.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#93

Post by paul9290 » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:43 PM UTC

rjurney wrote: post #41

Maybe all us angry nerds should OCCUPY something. Something big, related to SOPA. It would be cool to see EFF type concerns channeled into that movement.

Indeed we all should OCCUPY the capitol or the judiciary committee; inside the committee and outside.

Though will 1,000s of citizens trying to save the Internet from the media be covered by the media?

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#94

Post by marshray » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:43 PM UTC

thebigshane wrote: post #66

marshray wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term for large ISPs and DNS systems is "common carriers". They are qualitatively different than a Y Combinator.

I think you might be wrong. According to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier Internet Service Providers have argued against being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so [...] Because ISPs are no longer prohibited from discriminating among different types of content under common carrier law [...]

That's maybe an interesting discussion in its own right, but I think the fact that they're "arguing against" it means it was at least a relevant example.

A much better example would have been "The Power Company", a formally-regulated utility. The phone, electric, or gas utility is not allowed to refuse you service simply because they don't like your politics or your business judgment the way a Y Combinator can.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#95

Post by marcanthonyrosa » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:43 PM UTC

I'm sure you've seen the list of supporters (http://1.usa.gov/t7Wpo8). Even the list itself is a half-assed job by pro-SOPAs to illustrate Congressional support for the bill.

Unless, of course, the fragrance company Coty Inc has been seeing a lot of their fragrances being pirated online.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#96

Post by Turing_Machine » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #82

idiot900 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are, by definition, no good scientists who allow their religious beliefs to dictate their science. Some religious people are able to separate their personal irrationality from their professional rationality, and that's just fine.

By what definition? There are quite a few historical scientists who made great discoveries, who very extremely religious too. Newton comes to mind.

A more recent example would be this fellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#97

Post by chernevik » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position.

Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their position, ask them to explain how this _won't_ break DNS, how the precedents set here won't spread to other policy questions or countries. Don't get into balancing one industry or another -- just make them demonstrate a reasonable layperson understanding of how the internet works. The last thing a partner wants is to sound less than informed on the core technologies in their industry of expertise. If nothing else they'll have to go to school on the question.

No doubt many such partners will say they get it but the firm is larger than they are. And that's the point of a law firm, isn't it, you hire one because it provides quick access to expertise on a wide variety of subjects. But if that larger firm doesn't understand the tech business, just how prepared are they to handle technology problems in various corners of the law? Ask the M&A guy, the financing guy, the tax guy, to explain how SOPA won't break DNS.

I don't know where tech billings compare with movie and recording industry. But they aren't small: M&A, financings, patent, etc etc ad nauseum. Beyond that, the network and technology are the core of how business and industry are changing. Maybe these firms stand to gain from SOPA over the next five years. But can they, can the individual partners, afford to misunderstand the technologies that will be driving more and more clients over time? Get on the phone, not to argue, but to make them understand that they are showing an ignorance that could leave them behind.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#98

Post by wpietri » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:46 PM UTC

philh wrote: post #88

marshray wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're not talking about just any odd collection of investors. As I understand it, Y Combinator specifically relates to Internet-centric business models. SOPA seems wholly destructive to this sector of the economy.

Nevertheless, it is conceivable that a company could support SOPA while making good investments in the tech industry. Maybe they don't think SOPA will pass, and they want future business dealings with the RIAA. But that's not really the point, which is that whether or not they're good investors, they support something harmful. We're not boycotting them because we think they're bad investors. (If we thought they were…

I think it depends on what you mean by "good investor".

If you invest in tobacco, land mine manufacturers, and semi-competent toxic waste disposal facilities, you might make a mint. That would make you a good investor in the sense of profitable.

However, no entrepreneur in his right mind would take money from people like that, because they wouldn't be good investors in the sense of being supportive of a long-term effort to build a sustainable business in a healthy ecosystem.

So I'm with PG on this one. Anybody internet entrepreneur should be very suspicious about money from a SOPA supporter: partner, investor, or acquirerer.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#99

Post by mynameishere » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #5

" "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?" " That is a brilliant point.

how could they be good investors

Because they have a checkbook? Does General Dynamics care if pacifists buy their stock?

Since YC doesn't seem to sell to media-providers I suppose they won't be losing much, but seriously? If GE wrote me a billion dollar check, I'd take it no matter my politics.

Re: Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day

#100

Post by Joakal » Thu, Dec 22, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

AdamFernandez wrote: post #43

Gauntlet officially thrown down. I respect PG even more for taking a stand on this. Now we need to figure out the best way to get people opposed to SOPA on a grand scale. No disrespect to the HN community, but I wonder how much of an impact we really have had thus far. Tumblr, Reddit, and Mozilla have done a fairly good job of this, but they are not large enough to do it on their own. Next we need Google and Facebook…

1) Adjust the movement to be about INTERNET FREEDOM, not SOPA. This is because the bill can be delayed/stopped til there's an anti-child porn bill with similar wording.

eg "Demand INTERNET FREEDOM bills to replace the ANTI-INTERNET bills [of SOPA, PROTECT-IP, DMCA, etc]"

2) Having INTERNET FREEDOM bills would make it impossible for laws like SOPA to pass. As a bonus, compromises can be made while having some INTERNET FREEDOM. Whereas with SOPA, they're watering down some parts that still lead to ANTI-INTERNET. Which further encourages ANTI-INTERNET supporters to make huge demands. It's a technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

3) Find Congress people that love Internet. I hope there's a few! Ask if they can be the mascots, the INTERNET messiah, etc.

4) Copy and paste SOPA to start with. Replace the words to protect INTERNET instead. This is a delicious backfire of using someone's work and their own weapons against them.

5) Add a way for people to be excepted from the movement to the services. Also allow a way for people to understand why the companies are no longer appearing politically neutral (because the anti-INTERNET bills are going to kill them).

6) Add some masking of dropped services with JS hover and non-JS side-by-side of anti-FREEDOM warning 'of increased costs to comply with the legal demands of other companies'.

7) Of course, provide a simple link to the INTERNET FREEDOM movement that has to have two different sections;

a) Simple. A video, simple acts to perform to demand and spread the information. This is an attempt to educate people with simplicity. A link is provided to advanced for more complex information.

b) Advanced. 'Nerds', that understand the terminology, and what it's about. How to demand and spread information. Also how to explain with simple education if some people don't understand.

I tried to suggest some of this to Reddit's ideas for admins but got ghostbanned and censured because apparently it's 'politics' despite Reddit's recent anti-SOPA support.