Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling

from the well-look-at-that dept

So we were just discussing how a bunch of companies who were listed by the US Chamber of Commerce as SOPA/PIPA supporters are demanding to be taken off the list, noting that, while they had agreed to a generic statement about fighting the sale of counterfeit goods, they don't support crazy broad legislation like SOPA/PIPA. It seems that others listed as "supporting" SOPA are scrambling to get off the list as well. The Judiciary Committee's official list had included a bunch of big name law firms as being in support of the law as well -- which is a little strange, since law firms usually don't take official positions on things like this. They may express opinions on such matters on behalf of clients, but outright supporting legislation is a different ballgame altogether.

A group of lawyers (most of whom have a long history of working with the entertainment industry) did send a letter to the Judiciary Committee to say that they agreed with Floyd Abrams' analysis of SOPA. That's it. They didn't say their firms supported SOPA -- and, in fact, there's an asterisk with the signatures noting that the names of their firms are solely for identification purposes. Yet the Judiciary Committee took those names anyway and put them on the supporters list. Expressing a legal opinion on a bill is extraordinarily different from supporting the bill. But the Judiciary Committee ignored that and listed them as supporters anyway.

From what we've heard, many of those law firms are not happy, and have been demanding removal from the Judiciary Committee's official list. Among those who have already complained/been taken off the official list are Morrison & Foerster, Davis Wright Tremaine, Irell & Manella, Covington & Burling. I would hope that the Judiciary Committee removes all the names and issues a rather public apology for blatantly including the names of firms who clearly made no statement in support of the proposed legislation. This is a pretty egregious move on the part of House Judiciary Committee staff. They're so eager to list supporters that they've been naming firms who do not support the bills. And then they've been using those claims to pretend there's widespread support...

So, between the US Chamber of Commerce stretching what many companies thought they were supporting and pretending it meant support for SOPA/PIPA, and the Judiciary Committee's over-eagerness to assume that a legal analysis of one part of the bill by a few lawyers meant their huge law firms supported the bill... it's looking like the facade of widespread corporate support for SOPA is crumbling pretty quickly...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:30am

    I wonder if these will be considered weenies too by our usual suspect(s).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:39am

      Re:

      Lawyers are such weenies for being lawyers by pointing out the technical difference between an individual and their law firm.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:07am

      Re:

      I do think they are being very weenie like, but that seems to be the nature of lawyers.

      I would say more this (and the Godaddy change) is proof that those who claim to want free speech the most are seemingly the most willing to shout and cause a ruckus until other people shut up and stop opposing them.

      It's sad that anyone thinks of this stuff as a victory.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:12am

        Re: Re:

        proof that those who claim to want free speech the most are seemingly the most willing to shout and cause a ruckus until other people shut up and stop opposing them

        Sure, why not? Free speech includes the right to drown out the opposition if you have more voices - and the risk of being drowned out if you don't. That's not a free speech issue. When you go running to the government seeking laws that drown out the opposition, then it becomes one.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't think you have more voices. It's more a question of 1% at one end shouting down everyone else. Moreover, it's threatening people with harm to their business if they don't agree with you.

          Seems pretty shady to me.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Moreover, it's threatening people with harm to their business if they don't agree with you."

            Harm to their business? What harm has been threatened beyond not doing business with companies that support legislation we don't like?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You are right oh my havens.

            LoL

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You say shady, I say free will.

            Tomato, Camaro...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:28pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Why hello there, capitalism hater! Welcome to America, do enjoy your stay! (though the rampant capitalism might be too much for you)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Richard (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I don't think you have more voices.

            Stop deceiving yourself - we do - we have the vast majority of everyone who cares about these issues - it is you that is in the 0.01%.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 2:05pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            A boycott is the perfect example of both free speech and capitalism at its finest. Don't like it? Russia and China are that way.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 2:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            it's threatening people with harm to their business if they don't agree with you.

            Hahaha sure, fine, whatever. And for years I've been threatening this restaurant near my house to stop being shitty or else I'll continue not eating there.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If they're grown up, they can think for themselves and consider whether or not the 1% loudmouths have something reasonable in their argument.

            Apparently they've come to the conclusion that there is sense in it.

            So while I appreciate your rights, I must wholeheartedly disagree with your stance.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btr1701 (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:17am

        Re: Re:

        > I would say more this (and the Godaddy change)
        > is proof that those who claim to want free
        > speech the most are seemingly the most willing
        > to shout and cause a ruckus until other people
        > shut up and stop opposing them.

        Aggressively advocating your position is not censorship. Asking the government to pass laws to shut people up is.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:21am

        Re: Re:

        There is democracy in the fact that the majority can speak louder than the minority -- because they have more voices. That's how you elect presidents, after all.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You forget the ridiculous Electoral College. There is no law, rule, what have you that the Electoral College actually elect the highest vote getter.

          Now congresscritters are a different matter.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:34am

        Re: Re:

        You mean like how the mainstream media uses their government imposed monopoly power to brainwash the public with their self interested, one-sided (pro-IP) opinion while censoring any dissent?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:53am

        Re: Re:

        Uh.....WHAT!!?!?? Did you seriously just suggest that our voicing opposition to SOPA (for some reason termed shouting by you) proves we're AGAINST free speech?

        What new kind of retarded sophistry is this?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    pixelation, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:30am

    Rats leaving a sinking ship.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:37am

    "I would hope that the Judiciary Committee removes all the names and issues a rather public apology for blatantly including the names of firms who clearly made no statement in support of the proposed legislation."

    I'm placing my bets this apology will never happen; in fact, I'm going all in on this one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:43am

    US Chamber of Commerce is evil

    They've been behind a lot of crap lately-the elections of Tea Party governors, and general Republican garbage. That they're also doing this is not as surprising as the fact that they're lying about all this rumored support from established companies that had no clue they were on that list.

    I don't even think they have half of the support they think they have-and the more people become aware of that fact, the better. It will finally uncover what the lie was in the first place: that SOPA would get passed easily.

    Now it doesn't look so easy, does it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 1:09pm

      Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil

      I would also love to see an investigation that reveals the corruption of washington.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:06am

      Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil

      It isn't "Republicans". SOPA is a thoroughly bipartisan travesty. How about looking beyond your Skinner-box-level political "philosophy", just once?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dave, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 10:48am

      Re: US Chamber of Commerce is evil

      Totally disagree with you. Look at most of the republicans supporting this. They are big gov types. We call them RINOS...or NeoCons.. All my tea-party friends are against this abomination. Why? We are worried that the likes of Obama and his ilk will use it to censor our views!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:50am

    This is especially sweet coming only a few hours after that AC who has a crush on me accused YOU of "desperation" in finding people on your side of the SOPA fence :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:55am

      Re:

      What is sweet about it? We are still talking 0.000001% of the population. How sweet is that?

      Come on Marcus, buck up and stop being a schmuck.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:03pm

      Re:

      I should also say asking to have their names removed from the list is a long way from joining the opposition. It sounds more like they want to appear neutral so they can take money from both sides later.

      Nice try Marcus, but you are still a schmuck.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 2:17pm

        Re: Re:

        I should also say asking to have their names removed from the list is a long way from joining the opposition. It sounds more like they want to appear neutral so they can take money from both sides later.

        Did I say they joined the opposition?

        No, I'm pointing out that the "desperation" to find supporters is clearly on the SOPA side, since that's the side that has been exposed as misrepresenting who supports them on more than one occasion.

        but you are still a schmuck.

        You need to buy a thesaurus dude.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Heretic3e7, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:14am

    So... People within the Judiciary Committee used the trademarked names of companies without their permission?

    I wonder if the costs of licensing that trademarked material would be over $2,500.00...

    Book 'em!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    FM Hilton, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:26am

    Here's a suggestion

    Here's the full list of every company that publicly signed that letter to Congress in September:
    http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-sopa-opponents-should-worry-a bout/

    What everyone who has a twitter account could do is name one or two of these companies-shame them publicly..and keep on doing it.

    Eventually they'll want to be taken off the list. It's one way of making them pay for being stupid in public.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Loki, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Ya know, it is usually not a good idea to upset a bunch of tech nerds.

    But it's even less of a good idea to upset a bunch of lawyers.

    Managing to do both seems to me a very unwise course of action.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:06pm

    While I'm glad for any decrease in the SOPA support, I can't help thinking that the only reason the law firms don't support SOPA is that it would eliminate the need for a lot of copyright related lawsuits if the corporations can just shut the web sites down instead of suing (the sites and the users).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      wvhillbilly (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 4:07pm

      Re:

      Why not just shut down the entire Internet? That would get rid of the whole problem. That's about what SOPA/PIPA is going to do anyway, if it becomes law.

      Of course it wouldn't take long before a lot of people find ways to circumvent all the restrictions, and the whole 'Piracy' thing will go underground where it will be 10 times harder to detect. Is that what you want?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Dec 31st, 2011 @ 12:43pm

      Response to: Rekrul on Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:06pm

      Agreed. EA and Nintendo have both fully dropped support of the bill. It seems that it wasn't just certain Law Firms added to the "official list". The letter sent to companies specifically asked if they were against Piracy and made no mention of the entirety of the bill in the letter except the rhetoric of its supporters. Only specific sections were shown to appease specific companies opposition toward piracy. In legal terms this is known as legal misrepresentation and therefore makes the USCOC and the judiciary committee liable for lawsuit. I'm surprised no company has dared try that yet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    speedplane (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:21pm

    These law firms are pulling their endorsements? This is actually what they said:

    "In our considered opinion, the Protect IP Act and SOPA further the goal of free expression. Far from conflicting with the First Amendment, the proposed legislation will serve as an important contribution to ensuring an environment in which free speech and creative expression can thrive and flourish."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      The only point being made in the letter is that the named idividuals were expressing agreement with the legal analysis proferred by Mr. Abrams regarding the First Amendment.

      They expressed no opinion on any other issue.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      wvhillbilly (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 4:15pm

      Re:

      "In our considered opinion, the Protect IP Act and SOPA further the goal of free expression. Far from conflicting with the First Amendment, the proposed legislation will serve as an important contribution to ensuring an environment in which free speech and creative expression can thrive and flourish."


      By turning all Internet users into criminals? Everything on the Internet is copyright by default, so if it is illegal to download anything copyright from the Internet, then even downloading and displaying a web page (copyright by default even without a notice) is a criminal act.

      Is that what you want?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tox, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    "it's threatening people with harm to their business if they don't agree with you."

    What?

    Most internet companies have taken no public position on SOPA. Some have. Those that have taken a pro-SOPA position should be prepared to face the consequences, in the form of lost revenue, because the vast majority of informed Americans despise this turd of legislation.

    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech. GoDaddy, MoFo, UMG, et. al. are perfectly free to take whatever position on this or any other piece of legislation, for whatever reason they choose. That's freedom. Expecting to be able to take a public position, without affecting the opinions of the public? That's lunacy.

    I'm free to take my business to a company that better represents my values (or at least doesn't actively fight against them), and I'm free to suggest that other people should to. That's also freedom.

    Nobody's trying to drown out GoDaddy or Fox or any other supporter's position on the matter. If anything, we're trying to make sure that every one of their customers knows who their money goes to, so those customers can make an informed decision.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Doh, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 4:48pm

      Lost revenue

      So, I couldn't find a toll-free number, but I would bet if you call (480) 505-8877 and talk to them at length about, oh, wanting to sign up or something, it will also cost them money. This is stated rhetorically, because I would never advocate such a modest proposal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:51pm

    Frankly, I would like to see an official copy of this "list" to which you refer.

    The only copy of anything I have seen emanating from Congress is the list of co-sponsors of the Senate and House bills.

    Just out of curiosity, I wonder when the letter written by the named counsel came to your attention. I certainly hope it was very recently (as within the past day or two).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 12:56pm

    (most of whom have a long history of working with the entitlement industry)

    FTFY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tim Ellis, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 2:15pm

    Chamber of Secrets

    The Chamber of Commerce was lying? Goodness, what a surprise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 5:56pm

    A couple of persons above were kind enough to direct to to the "list". Given the subject of this article, I expected to find the names of law firms on it. Curiously, I did not see any.

    It does seem a bit strange that firms who are not listed would want to be de-listed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:07am

      Re:

      A couple of persons above were kind enough to direct to to the "list". Given the subject of this article, I expected to find the names of law firms on it. Curiously, I did not see any.

      It does seem a bit strange that firms who are not listed would want to be de-listed.


      No, it's not weird. If you bothered to *READ* you would have seen that the Judiciary Committee admitted to totally fucking up and removed all those law firms names.

      Just because you're too slow to figure out how to use the web and to have found the list before Judiciary fixed it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

      From: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70824.html


      “Firms are livid. This is a major screw-up, and it could hurt our reputation,” said one firm official who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak on the record. “Judiciary owes us an explanation.”

      After reviewing the list, a Judiciary Committee aide confirmed that some firms were erroneously included. The aide said the list has since been updated on the committee’s website, although one version of it remained uncorrected as of press time.

      “The listing of the law firms was a mistake made at the staff level of the committee,” the committee said in a statement to POLITICO. “Once we were made aware of the mistake, we immediately removed the list of supporters from the website and revised the document. Our staff has been in contact with several of the firms and made them aware of our efforts to remedy the mistake.”


      For someone who always tries to act like you know everything, I'm beginning to wonder if you know anything.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 7:37am

        Re: Re:

        It would have saved me research time had you simply provided the above link in your original article.

        Law firms that represent clients with divergent sets of interests obviously do not go on record supporting specific legislation. Hence, I found it somewhat surprising that there was purportedly a "list" reflecting support. All I found from your article was a letter from certain named attorneys expressing support of Mr. Abrams' analysis of the First Amendment as it pertains to the pending bills. Supporting a legal analysis of a specific issue is not the same as supporting the entirety of the bills.

        You will note I made an inquiry as to when the letter from the named attorneys first came to your attention. I did so in the fervent hope that you had just learned about it. Otherwise it would have called into question some of your earlier comments that a ton of attorneys were aligned against Mr. Abrams' analysis, and that Mr. Abrams' seemed to be the only one opining that the pending bills do not rul afoul of the First Amendment. Apparently this is not the case, and if this was known to you for some appreciable length of time their letter should have been mentioned.

        Correctly stated so as not to mislead others, it should have been stated that there is not universal agreement on the First Amendment issue, with some asserting that the bills do run afoul of the law, and others asserting that it does not. An unbiased article would have made this very point and presented you as being an honest broker.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 9:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It would have saved me research time had you simply provided the above link in your original article.


          I provided a link to the letter which was relevant. In past articles I provided links to those who had compiled the list.

          Providing the link directly to the Judiciary page was pointless, since they were already removing the names.

          You will note I made an inquiry as to when the letter from the named attorneys first came to your attention. I did so in the fervent hope that you had just learned about it. Otherwise it would have called into question some of your earlier comments that a ton of attorneys were aligned against Mr. Abrams' analysis, and that Mr. Abrams' seemed to be the only one opining that the pending bills do not rul afoul of the First Amendment. Apparently this is not the case, and if this was known to you for some appreciable length of time their letter should have been mentioned.

          I had missed your question. I learned of the letter on Thursday night, did the research on Friday morning and posted the story then.

          Why you assumed otherwise, and went on to accuse me of not being an honest broker, is beyond me.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 10:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I regret not being as clear as I should have been. My only point was that if the letter had been known to you for an extended period of time, then it that case it would have called into question some of your prior articles.

            Your mention of when the letter came to your attention lays that possibility to rest. After all, it is hard to talk about something if you are not aware it exists.

            You did link the letter by the attorneys, but the "list" was not linked. This is what took me some time to find, and apparently even then it had been changed to omit some names. What surprised me about the "list", and why I took the time to look for it, is that law firms (including mine when I was in private practice) simply do not, except in the rarest of circumstances, ever lend the firm's name in support of pending legislation.

            With this said, I hope I clarified my remarks to your satisfaction.

            BTW, and in all sincerity, I do wish you and your family a joyous holiday. I know it never snows in the Santa Clara Valley, but perhaps if you close your eyes and imagine it to be so it will be so. Otherwise, you can go outside with your children and do as we do in Florida...make angels in the grass.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:48pm

    Boycott all SOPA sponsors

    SOPA Sponsors:

    60 Plus Association

    ABCAlliance for Safe Online Pharmacies (ASOP)

    American Federation of Musicians (AFM)

    American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)

    American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)

    Americans for Tax Reform

    Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States

    Association of American Publishers (AAP)

    Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies

    Association of Talent Agents (ATA)

    Baker & Hostetler LLP

    Beachbody, LLC

    BMI-BMG Chrysalis

    Building and Construction Trades Department

    Capitol Records NashvilleCBS

    Cengage Learning

    Christian Music Trade Association

    Church Music Publishers’ Association

    Coalition Against Online Video Piracy (CAOVP)

    Comcast/NBC Universal

    Concerned Women for America (CWA)

    Congressional Fire Services Institute

    Copyhype

    Copyright Alliance

    Coty, Inc.

    Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB)

    Council of State Governments

    Country Music Association

    Country Music Television

    Covington & Burling LLP

    Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP

    Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.

    Creative America

    Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

    Deluxe

    Directors Guild of America (DGA)

    Disney Publishing Worldwide, Inc.

    Elsevier

    EMI Christian Music Group

    EMI Music Publishing

    ESPN

    Estée Lauder Companies

    Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)

    Go Daddy

    Gospel Music Association

    Graphic Artists Guild

    Hachette Book Group

    HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, Inc.

    Hyperion

    Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA)

    International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees (IATSE)

    International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC)

    International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)

    International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)

    International Trademark Association (INTA)

    International Union of Police Associations

    Irell & Manella LLP

    Jenner & Block LLP

    Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

    Kendall Brill & Klieger LLP

    Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP

    L’Oreal

    Lathrop & Gage LLP

    Loeb & Loeb LLP

    Lost Highway Records

    Macmillan

    Major County Sheriffs

    Major League Baseball

    Majority City Chiefs

    Marvel Entertainment, LLC

    MasterCard Worldwide

    MCA Records

    McGraw-Hill Education

    Mercury Nashville

    Minor League Baseball (MiLB)

    Minority Media & Telecom Council (MMTC)

    Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP

    Morrison & Foerster LLP

    Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

    Moving Picture Technicians

    MPA – The Association of Magazine Media

    National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)

    National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators

    National Association of State Chief Information Officers

    National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)

    National Center for Victims of Crime

    National Crime Justice Association

    National District Attorneys Association

    National Domestic Preparedness Coalition

    National Football League

    National Governors Association, Economic Development and Commerce Committee

    National League of Cities

    National Narcotics Offers’ Associations’ Coalition

    National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA)

    National Songwriters Association

    National Troopers Coalition

    News Corporation

    Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

    Pearson Education

    Penguin Group (USA), Inc.

    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

    Phillips Nizer, LLP

    Pfizer, Inc.

    Proskauer Rose LLP

    Provident Music Group

    Random House

    Raulet Property Partners

    Republic Nashville

    Revlon

    Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP

    Scholastic, Inc.

    Screen Actors Guild (SAG)

    Shearman & Sterling LLP

    Showdog Universal Music

    Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

    Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

    Sony/ATV Music Publishing

    Sony Music Entertainment

    Sony Music Nashville

    State International Development Organization (SIDO)

    The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO)

    The Perseus Books Groups

    The United States Conference of Mayors

    Tiffany & Co.

    Time Warner

    Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)

    UMG Publishing Group Nashville

    United States Chamber of Commerce

    United States Tennis Association

    Universal Music

    Universal Music Publishing Group

    ViacomVisa, Inc.

    W.W. Norton & Company

    Warner Music Group

    Warner Music Nashville

    White & Case LLP

    Wolters Kluewer Health

    Word Entertainmen

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    tmc, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:53pm

    This guy

    This guy is also making the rounds exposing the lies told by the old media industry in their 10+ years long battle against new media and the internet.

    google mike mozart & sopa

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    lemmingseo2, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 2:07pm

    "From what we've heard, many of those law firms are not happy, and have been demanding removal from the Judiciary Committee's official liste"

    .... What did they expect ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Le ouistiti est dans la place, Apr 24th, 2012 @ 7:42am

    I found the new one after the old one stopped functioning. It should be noted that the new and old lists are NOT identical, and the old one contained both ouistitiGoDaddy

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This