Kaspersky Dumps BSA For Its Support Of SOPA; Says SOPA Hurts Consumers & Innovation

from the can't-support-that dept

Remember last month, when some SOPA supporters were pretending that because the Business Software Alliance (BSA) supported SOPA, it meant that all of its member companies supported SOPA too? Yeah, well, that resulted in the BSA backing down, after it realized (with some prompting from Microsoft) that perhaps SOPA wasn’t such a good thing. It appears that that’s not enough for some tech companies. Anti-virus firm Kaspersky has announced that it’s dumping its association with the BSA because of its support for SOPA. The company says that it “does not support this initiative,” explaining:

We believe that such measures will be used contrary to the modern advances in technology and the needs of consumers.

Perhaps the BSA will learn to not be so quick on the draw in the future to support every single idea to make copyright more and more draconian.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: bsa, kaspersky

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Kaspersky Dumps BSA For Its Support Of SOPA; Says SOPA Hurts Consumers & Innovation”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
out_of_the_blue says:

It's true that SOPA isn't for "consumers".

But on other hand, who here is FOR piracy? (Come on, let’s see pro-pirate posts, don’t hide.) — Pirates are by no stretch “consumers”, as that implies someone who actually pays for what they consume.

So, yup, SOPA is for the content industry. Big news. And it’s also anti-pirate, don’t forget.

Kaspersky is one of the many bottom-feeders in the Microsoft food chain, depends entirely on FLAWS in Microsoft products. They could, according to doctrine here, go either way on SOPA: If people are driven to unreliable sites, then Kaspersky’s biz is sure to skyrocket from more infections of Microsoft flaws. — On the other hand, if DNS blocking against warez sites was effective, Kaspersky’s biz might plummet! — So, tough call.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: It's true that SOPA isn't for "consumers".

“Pirates are by no stretch “consumers”, as that implies someone who actually pays for what they consume.”

What would you say if I told you studies suggest “pirates”, as you call them, actually out-PURCHASE non-pirates when it comes to legitimate transactions?

“Kaspersky is one of the many bottom-feeders in the Microsoft food chain, depends entirely on FLAWS in Microsoft products.”

LOLwut? Solving a problem is now being a bottom-feeder? So….computer manufacturers are just bottom feeders, relying entirely on God’s flawed design of man to limit his computing power? Also, plumbers are just bottom-feeders, relying entirely on pipe manufacturers not somehow making their pipes flawless?

iamtheky (profile) says:

Re: It's true that SOPA isn't for "consumers".


While you are probably most familiar with their Microsoft offerings (probably due to market share or some other economically sound reason), they offer security solutions for a wide range of products.

if DNS blocking against warez sites was effective

like HE rounds are effective at stopping traffic violations?

DCX2 says:

Re: It's true that SOPA isn't for "consumers".

Kaspersky is one of the many bottom-feeders in the Microsoft food chain, depends entirely on FLAWS in Microsoft products.

Everything can be hacked, and most of it isn’t a Microsoft product. SCADA systems. Printers. Unix. Linux. Mac OS. iOS. Android.

Also, a great deal of malware involves users clicking “OK” or “install”. Those flaws have nothing to do with Microsoft, and yet Kaspersky still depends on them being unable to avoid doing stupid things.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's true that SOPA isn't for "consumers".

Actually, I think that Blue is just trying to misdirect the conversation away from the child abuse and child porn charges that have been happening in Hollywood lately.

I think Hollywood and Big Music should be focusing on the real problems….child abuse and porn, drugs…..funny how “pirates” are demonized but child abuse, child porn, and drug abuse is ‘just part of the industry’.

Puts a whole new spin on ‘think of the children’.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's true that SOPA isn't for "consumers".

“But on other hand, who here is FOR piracy? (Come on, let’s see pro-pirate posts, don’t hide.) — Pirates are by no stretch “consumers”, as that implies someone who actually pays for what they consume.”

So someone that has a few downloaded MP3s on their computer is not a consumer? What did they go steal the computer, the electricity, the internet, the house, cars, food, etc.?

Loki says:

Re: It's true that SOPA isn't for "consumers".

You seem to think that everyone has an all or nothing mentality on all issues. Given “piracy” isn’t directly an issue for me the same way smoking isn’t directly an issue for me (as neither are activities I engage in), argument “for” or “against” are more thought exercises than anything else.

But let’s look at your arguments:

Pirates are by no stretch “consumers”, as that implies someone who actually pays for what they consume.

This is incorrect. SOME pirates are by no means “consumers”. There are also many, many “pirates” who “try before they buy” the same way most people test drive a car before they make a purchase.

And it’s also anti-pirate, don’t forget.

This bill is about anti-pirate in the same way a flame thrower is anti-weeds. Sure a scorched-earth policy might keeps the weeds from growing, but it’ll keep everything else from growing too. In fact the flame thrower is probably more affective, as it at least will probably stop the weeds, whereas this bill will do very little to stop “piracy” as it destroys/damages a lot of other things in the process.

Kaspersky is one of the many bottom-feeders in the Microsoft food chain, depends entirely on FLAWS in Microsoft products.

First off, as has been pointed out, Kaspersky (as does McAfee, Systemac and others) do a LOT more than just plug Microsoft holes. But more telling is the irony of your statement, given that using this same logic, one can reasonably argue that “pirates” depend entirely on FLAWS in entertainment industry products. If people are driven to unreliable business models, than piracy is sure to skyrocket. If people were offered reliable, cost effective way to consume content, piracy might plummet. — So, though call.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: It's true that SOPA isn't for "consumers".

The drop into binary thinking and options is almost always the last resort of someone who hasn’t thought things through or to hide blatant hypocrisy or both.

You’ve qualified more times than enough on both counts.

As for Kazpersky they sell software supporting the Apache server, sell software that supports Linux and Mac firewalls and a host of other products. Some under GPL, some closed source. All of which proves…..nothing.

Kaspersky also has open source code out there to deal with DNS failures such as finding existing sites a DNS server can’t locate which needs only minor updating to get around SOPAs blocking provisions.

The code, incidentally deals with a perfectly legitimate and legal response to an invalid response from a broken DNS server before you go off on a tangent about that being somehow evil and supporting pirates and stuff like that further illustrating your ignorance of the architecture of the Internet.

As has been noted already, contrary to your and the entertainment industry’s claims that piracy leads to a drop in sales empirical evidence shows the opposite in studies that can be verified as being statistically valid and then duplicated. Too bad the entertainment industry’s studies can’t do the same no matter how often they and you have been asked to bring one forward.

People, of course, are responsible for being idiots if that’s what they want to be and go to sites that are dangerous. They can do that quite well on their own accord with out any help from Kaspersky’s software or any other malware program.

Your insistence that everyone opposed to SOPA/IP Protect must, somehow be pro-pirate is disingenuous as is your support for an industry you otherwise claim to oppose and its influence in Congress. Why? Because it’s anti-pirate.

It’s no such thing, of course, but it makes nice cover for legislation that is, in reality a protectionist welfare program for them. In the meantime it wants to force payment processors into denying sites money on the private, unassailable, unquestionable complaint of someone in an industry that has a track record of forever getting it wrong. and over reacting on the odd occasion they get it, sorta, kinda right. Denying the accused of due process along the way which is just another way of indulging in unreasonable search and seizure. That last bit simply isn’t allowed. Read your own country’s constitution.

You’re supporting a law based on unproven evidence supporting a mythic loss of income by an industry that is still profitable but is finding it hard to compete in a vastly changed mileau that they have no intention of adapting to. They once owned the distribution channels and controlled them and they want it back even if they have to lie to get it back, bring down copyright law in order to do it because the governed (aka the citizenry) withdraw their support for it because it no longer serves the intent it was supposed to support both inside and outside of the United States, attempts apply laws which amount to unreasonable search and seizure and apply American laws extra territorially in violation of every trade agreement the USA has ever signed and in a fashion that should, say France try it on the United States there would be Senators, Congressmen and others foaming at the mouth for war. (0verstatement. Not by a lot by overstatement.)

SOPA isn’t about customers, it’s not about people going to dangerous sites to grab warez or that sort of thing, it’s not about the artists and never has been, it’s about the entertainment industry desperately trying to get control over something they will ultimately fail to gain control over…how products, ideas, music, inventions, software and progress will be spread and distributed in the future. That’s why the tech industry opposes it, it’s why Microsoft pushed the BSA to scale back its support and why Kazpersky broke with BSA on the issue publicly. Its why the entire open source movement is opposed to it. (Of course I’m sure you think they’re all pirates, after all they just HAVE to be using the same illogic used by SCO). It’s why musicians, writers, artists and others are opposed to it. Including myself.

All in all then, I guess, in your binary world view I just have to be pro-pirate.

I use open source software which I download or torrent for nothing from the distibutor’s site (or worse yet that den of piracy called SourceForge), what I write is protected by copyright though I license it using a Creative Commons license that doesn’t demand payment, simply attribution and I believe studies that say that, by and large, folks you call pirates are, in fact, consumers at the end of the day.

If that’s what I am, then, “aye matey, I am and damned proud of it, I am.”

Except that I have never knowingly infringed on anyone’s copyright or patent in my life. I cite my sources when I quote from them, I use content as the artist wishes me to do from their own mouth and I could go on. I’ve never violated a patent that I’m aware of. (Though software patents are about as silly as plans anyone might have for human settlement on Venus.)

For all that I’m a pirate in your eyes and so be it. All because I oppose legislation like SOPA in the United States or similar legislation in my own country. I refuse to lose my freedoms and liberties for the good of an industry whose height of innovation seems to be “American Chopper Senior vs Junior”. I could go on. I refuse to support censorship in any form particularly when it’s imposed by government in support of private industry not just in the personage of the RIAA, MPAA or some publishers group. We had that not too long ago in Canada meant to support a relic from the mercantile era called the Hudson’s Bay Company. I don’t want to see it again. And I sure as hell oppose corporate welfare in any form for any reason but most of all one that can’t open it’s corporate mouth without lying about the reasons it needs it.

I’m told I don’t suffer fools gladly, blue. That being the case I’ve suffered you for far too long. You’re ignorant, a hypocrite and you just won’t learn.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It is of course your right to purchase or not to purchase products based on a companies stance on something. Heck I vote with my feet quite often.

I would however like to correct you. This affects their business in two ways. One their main customer IT professionals see this bill as one big headache. You should always cater to your customers. Secondly if a fractured internet was to develop out of this with rogue DNS providers they would have more work than they would perhaps want. For example you would have to look at two lists for sites that you want your firewall to steer them away from.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I am boycotting all Kaspersky products and services from this point foward. This bill would not affect their business in any way but they are taking action anyway. So will I.

What will you do if all other AV providers take the same stance (which seems logical).

Your computer will become unusable!

(and we will be spared your comments!)

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I guess you’re going to have to boycott all Microsoft products from here on in because they were one of the biggies that basically told the Business Software Association to back off on it’s too too enthusiastic support for SOPA and ProtectIP. I suspect other biggies such as Adobe were trying to get them to do the same thing. I guess you’ll have to boycott open source software as they’re opposed right across the spectrum. You’re going to be looking scratching hard to find a tech company closed or open source that unreservedly supports these bills. No the bill doesn’t affect their AV business. That’s not the only line of business they’re in. They’ve also worked and continue to work with the Apache Foundation on software that works with the Apache Web Server and it WILL affect that part of their business. Oh heck, why bother. I ought to dash off a macro for this but here goes: SOPA in not about the artists, never has been. It’s about supporting a failing industry that will say anything, lie about anything in order to get protectionist welfare from the United States in order not to adapt to a changed marketplace. I know that legislators can be bought off. That seems to have happened. What’s your excuse?

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Kaspersky already does some smart anti-piracy things. For one thing, their basic home licence allows you to legally use their product on more than one computer in your home.

All AV software has flaws, and Kaspersky has some of the more annoying ones including well-known false positives that they don’t seem to be able or willing to correct. Still, their withdrawal from BSA probably means that I will be more likely to renew my license with them next time it expires.

New Mexico Mark says:

Re: Re:

I did that recently with B&N. I was torn between a Nook and a Kindle as a b-day present for my wife, but B&N’s stance against Microsoft as a copyright bully got my $$$ vote for B&N. (Amazon’s “you can pay us a LOT more if you don’t want us pushing our advertisements to ‘your’ device” marketing ploy was another factor.)

Good on B&N and good on Kaspersky for actually taking a stand against more repressive laws and true cyber bullying.

BTW, my wife absolutely loves the Nook Simple Touch if anyone is comparing e-readers.


ITjimmy says:


I don’t see how any consumer would want to support this. this will make it more difficult for you to keep your computer safe in general. I personally don’t like it because it means if I decide to post a video of me covering a song I like I would either have to pay royalties or not post it. that’s stupid if I’m just a regular guy posting a video on youtube for friends to see.

I personally put over 1200 dollars into the software/music/gaming industry a year. I probably download 100-200 songs “illegally” as well. Also through work I normally end up putting 10-25000 dollars a year into the software industry. How is me downloading 100 or so songs hurting anyone with how much more i’m putting into the industry. I’m not going to buy music if I haven’t had a chance to listen to some of it before. I have bought many cd’s that I originally downloaded a couple songs from illegally. Heck they already shut down the biggest company that was allowing sharing of that music. what more do they really want?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...