21–30 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an EFF member and strongly support the overall cause, but also strongly disagree with many of its initiatives and positions. I imagine the situation is similar with regards to the BSA and its members, as it is with any group.
If the EFF announced support for a bill that would negatively change the entire landscape of the internet as we know it, would you still be a member of the EFF? Would you continue paying dues and remain silent on the issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the EFF announced support for a bill that would negatively change the entire landscape of the internet as we know it, would you still be a member of the EFF? Would you continue paying dues and remain silent on the issue?
No, and no. But when did the BSA announce support for SOPA directly? I may have missed this, but I never saw anything of the sort.
'Holleyman's stance marks a reversal for BSA, which originally supported the bill. In a press statement last month, Holleyman said the bill was "a good step" to "address the problem of online piracy."'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the EFF announced support for a bill that would negatively change the entire landscape of the internet as we know it, would you still be a member of the EFF? Would you continue paying dues and remain silent on the issue?
And once enough of its members kicked up a fuss, it would probably change its position on that matter. Sound familiar?
I think you mean "Adobe" and not "Apple", since "Apple" is not mentioned anywhere in that article.
According to this page ( http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members... ) Apple is a member.
yumraj's original point still stands.
The word in the title should be "Withdraw", not "Withdrawal"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And once enough of its members kicked up a fuss, it would probably change its position on that matter. Sound familiar?
BSA's members only kicked up a fuss once people like you and I started making noise.
The simplest explanation is that the members who were indifferent before, have changed their position in light of the recent "noise". But you can't work backwards and say that those members were originally in support of the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BSA's members only kicked up a fuss once people like you and I started making noise.
So, the system works.
There is no system. That's what makes the internet awesome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BSA's members only kicked up a fuss once people like you and I started making noise.
Sure, but the point is that being a member of the BSA doesn't imply support of SOPA. Maybe it did yesterday, but it especially didn't a few weeks ago, before this whole thing received so much attention. The simplest explanation is that the members who were indifferent before, have changed their position in light of the recent "noise". But you can't work backwards and say that those members were originally in support…
Can anyone on the inside explain how this kind of thing works? This is my thinking: 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. 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…
The reason why they miscalculated is a mystery to me, perhaps they have realized they have let this "internet" thing go way too far, they cannot control it anymore using controlled disinformation techniques, and this was one of their last attempts to stop this trend.
Yes, it's really that bad out there. But it's getting better.