Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 286 posts

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

#111

Post by pg »

mekoka wrote: post #53
nextparadigms wrote: post #6

PG, if you're reading this, I don't know which list you saw, but here's one with SOPA supporters that is probably the most comprehensive: http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-s...

I glanced at that list quickly even before I was aware of the boycott. Many of those names are just random non-tech related companies, but I couldn't help but think that GoDaddy sticks out like a sore thumb on it. Almost as if they were tricked into joining.

They're not a regular technology company. They're owned by KKR.

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

#112

Post by michaels0620 »

codyrobbins wrote: post #103
mekoka wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I don’t think that’s the reason why fashion brands are against knock-offs. They don’t necessarily expect that everyone who buys a counterfeit will buy the real thing. Instead, a market glutted with counterfeit products dilutes their brand and reflects poorly on the quality of their merchandise because consumers confuse the knock-off with the real thing. And that most certainly does lose them something. A Chanel h…

There was an article (that I now cannot find) that claimed there was a positive effect of counterfeiting for high end fashion brands because it motivated buyers to more quickly move on to the latest version. Someone who is willing to spend $700 on a hand bag will get a newer version rather than hold onto the one they have when they see anyone and everyone sporting it.

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

#113

Post by pan69 »

chernevik wrote: post #97

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 posi…

All though I sympathize with your argument, it seems to be based on "reasoning". Reasoning is the one thing this government/industry ins't interested in.

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

#115

Post by johnrob »

As much as I support the anti SOPA cause, is this more of a hunger strike than a consequential action? The startups presenting at demo day need those dollars a whole lot more than the corporate venture arms need the investments. Money is money, no matter how stupid it may be.

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

#116

Post by codyrobbins »

michaels0620 wrote: post #112
codyrobbins wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don’t think that’s the reason why fashion brands are against knock-offs. They don’t necessarily expect that everyone who buys a counterfeit will buy the real thing. Instead, a market glutted with counterfeit products dilutes their brand and reflects poorly on the quality of their merchandise because consumers confuse the knock-off with the real thing. And that most certainly does lose them something. A Chanel h…

There was an article (that I now cannot find) that claimed there was a positive effect of counterfeiting for high end fashion brands because it motivated buyers to more quickly move on to the latest version. Someone who is willing to spend $700 on a hand bag will get a newer version rather than hold onto the one they have when they see anyone and everyone sporting it.

That’s an interesting point, and I’d like to read that article, but I think it’d be highly situationally dependent on the particular brand and you’d have to know their internal sales numbers to confirm it.

Even if it were true, though, it still doesn’t address the fact that the designers would be crazy not to want more power to stop their designs from being stolen for simply artistic rather than pragmatic or business reasons. It’s not fair to call them greedy or immoral—and it’s certainly uncalled for and wrong to call them unpatriotic traitors—for wanting this and for not particularly caring about our industry just as we probably don’t really care about theirs. In fact, it’s that kind of one-sided ad hominem bullshit that’s actually the problem.

That being said, SOPA is still an unacceptable solution.

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

#117

Post by gnaritas »

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.

Only because their discoveries and religion didn't conflict. There is zero room in doing good science for faith.

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

#118

Post by bigohms »

chernevik wrote: post #97

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 posi…

Firms do not usually take stances on legislative matters their own. SOPA's passage significantly benefits firms' activity levels and in turn the revenue produced in the furtherance of protecting their clients' rights. While outward facing corporate positions may take a neutral or negative stance on SOPA, many overt and implicit stances are taken by their respective counsel. SOPA claims made via premptive cease and desist letters or active litigation may or may not claim SOPA in their position statements to prevent drawing clear relationships between their clients and SOPA. Most agreements come with gag clauses to further protect and guarantee the cat doesn't get out of the bag. Unfortunately, firms are notoriously good for keeping secrets, so I am not expecting Wikipedia like bombshells connecting brand X to SOPA support.

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

#119

Post by fennecfoxen »

wpietri wrote: post #98
philh wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eff…

Minor tangent here that's not relevant to your main point - what exactly is wrong with trying to dispose of toxic waste in a "semi-competent" manner? Lead, mercury, asbestos, and all those other freaky things have got to go somewhere. Shouldn't you be more pissed off at people generating that waste?

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

#120

Post by gasull »

samstave wrote: post #22

PG, thank you - this is one of the best stances against SOPA yet. Frankly, this is a badass stance. And this line, as also mentioned by others, is fantastic: "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?"

I was going to say the same thing.

Thank you PG for doing your part. Thank you so much.

Post reply on HN