No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC

from the bad-reporting dept

Update: Netflix has confirmed through its official Twitter account that the PAC was not set up to support SOPA/PIPA.

Okay, can we kill this story quickly? There's a ton of buzz going around claiming that Netflix has built up a Super PAC to promote a pro-SOPA agenda. As far as I can tell, this is simply not true. It started from a report in Politico, which mentioned (accurately) that Netflix had formed a PAC called FLIXPAC, and is getting much more aggressive in the lobbying/legislative front. This follows Netflix's trend of spending more and more on lobbying in the last few years: $20,000 in 2009, $130,000 in 2010 and $500,000 in 2011. Where it gets odd is that Politico tries to tie this to SOPA/PIPA by listing out those amounts and noting that the $500k in 2011 was spent "as legislative debates over the Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act and Video Privacy Protection Act raged."

In turn, the folks at RT played a game of bad reporter telephone and spun it into Netflix funding a pro-SOPA super PAC, "whose main goal is to promote SOPA-like legislation." I don't know what's up with the folks at RT. While their TV reporting can be quite good, their online reporting is abysmal at times. They clearly exaggerate stories or write from a position of ignorance.

The truth is that Netflix was basically neutral on SOPA, knowing that it had to balance its technology side and the fact that it is constantly negotiating with the big Hollywood studios on deals. Politically, it basically had to take a neutral position. But the company knows better than to out-and-out support really bad internet legislation. The company has been active on things like net neutrality and the Video Privacy Protection Act -- things that do have a direct impact on it. Sure, it would have been great if Netflix had been a strong anti-SOPA faction, the fact that it stayed neutral and is now ramping up its lobbying does not, in any way, mean that it's suddenly pushing for pro-SOPA legislation. The company appears to have a lot of other things on its legislative agenda.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 3:17pm

    Sounds like you are trying to get work over there by being Baghdad Bob for them. Nothing to see here.

    Carry on, lobbyist. Hopefully you can keep getting gainful employment in the field.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:11pm

      Re:

      So he reports people lied, and that means he's trying to pull the crap every politician does? I guess that's what you're used to dealing with, you assume everyone is as corrupt as the people you're in bed with.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Benjo (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:25pm

      Re:

      Seems like anyone can get a job at Netflix these days. They've been making some pretty awful decisions in their marketing / basic strategy department.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Matt T. (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 7:39pm

      Seriously

      Guys, can we stop reporting every inane troll we see? It's gotten to the point where even legitimate opposing viewpoints (I.E. not this one) are getting hidden because they state an unpopular opinion.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    AC Cobra, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 3:41pm

    ?

    So what is their agenda?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Adeel Khamisa, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 3:42pm

    Thanks Mike

    If things change please let us know!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:02pm

    This is digital consumer.

    Fuck Netflix.

    They had a chance and they puked it as far as I am concerned.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      SomeoneWhoActuallyReadTheArticle, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:32pm

      Re:

      Netflix is evil and is supporting SOPA.. is that what you took from this article? Learn to read better, dumb fuck.

       

      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, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:51pm

        Re: Re:

        Listen dumbfuck, I didn't anything about SOPA, they could support anti-sopa protests and I still think they are shitfucks. I just flat out don't lik the way they do business. SO why don't you take your fathers dick and chomp on it. tyvm:)

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:15pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The reality is that Netflix will obviously do whatever is necessary to create a better bottom line for itself regardless
          of politics, but the answer is how they will view what is necessary. Their obvious disconnect with the end consumer gives me no confidence that if push comes to shove, they will make the right choice for the end customer. More likely, they will raise the costs and restrict their services, as they have shown to be their business plan so far. So for Netflix, just because they have not done political evil that we know of yet, doesn't mean they are not capable of it.

           

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          Fuck You, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          My troll dick is bigger than your troll dick! Fuck you.

           

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

  •  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:11pm

    Netflix themselves have tweeted out how stupid this whole thing is:

    https://twitter.com/#!/netflix/status/189485496366407680

    PAC was NOT set up to support SOPA/PIPA: Netflix: Stories about our new PAC and SOPA are not true

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:31pm

      Re:

      RT is trying way too hard to compare everything to SOPA and get everyone riled up against legislation. It's really not helping them make their case when they continue to report bad info.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Alex K, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:43pm

    How stupid do they think we are?

    So they've formed a Superpac for what then? Exactly?!

    And when they're handing out $5000 cheques to politicians, they're doing it for what reason? For my own good?

    Fuck Netflix

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:46pm

      Re: How stupid do they think we are?

      This.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:52pm

      Re: How stupid do they think we are?

      For those that can't read or reason, I guess your reaction is typical. However, for those willing to look into the situation, the reason for forming this PAC are quite clear.

      http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gt0muj

      There's been some speculation around the creation of FlixPAC. PACs are commonplace for leading companies in big, growing markets, and Netflix is no exception. We did not found FlixPAC for the purpose of supporting SOPA or PIPA. Instead, FlixPAC helps us engage in other issues including network neutrality, bandwidth caps, usage based billing and reforming the Video Privacy Protection Act.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Digital Consumer (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 9:13pm

        Re: Re: How stupid do they think we are?

        Did you know Netflix had an original stance on SOPA and it was
        PRO?

        Why do you think they changed their stance? Maybe fearing consumer backlash, they changed it to Neutral, then went behind closed doors to make a Superpac? Is that possible? Maybe you don't actually follow the companies history you are defending. I doubt you will admit you are wrong. I guess you have more in common with Hollywood than you thought?

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Matthew Moore, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 12:39am

          Re: Re: Re: How stupid do they think we are?

          Did you know that you don't know what you are talking about? The "pro-SOPA" stance you are talking about was a letter written that was a page and a half long with 7 pages of signatures of people and companies that support it. The letter basically said "pirating is bad, mmkay". When SOPA was introduced 3 MONTHS LATER, the people that signed that letter were tagged as supporters of SOPA despite the fact they had never even heard of SOPA before that point.
          You know.. before you accuse someone of something, perhaps you could research it first. Just sayin'..

           

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

  •  
    icon
    jenl (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:45pm

    $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

    On their disclosure according to the Silicon Beat article:

    "And in 2011, the company spent $500,000 lobbying Congress on topics such as: 'Telecommunications issues, Internet non-discrimination; Internet privacy, Intellectual property issues; Internet competition issues; H.R. 2471, Video Privacy Protection Act,' according to Senate lobbying disclosure records."

    So far this, and that article, and Netflix's link to that article, are the only 3 things I see defending Netflix. My question if if they were neutral on SOPA and PIPA, as you state, what would be the purpose of spending any lobbying money on advancing a neutral position?

    "Hi, I'm a lobbyist well paid by Netflix to lobby on Intellectual property issues and I just wanted to stop by and let you know we're neutral."

    To me, that makes no sense. If you have another explanation, I'm all ears.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:56pm

      Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

      Because the money they are spending now has absolutely nothing to do with SOPA and PIPA. They want to fight usage based billing. They want to fight bandwidth caps. They want to preserve net neutrality. They want to reform the video privacy protection act. Non of that has anything to do with SOPA and PIPA.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        jenl (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:12pm

        Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

        Again, they did state in their disclosure that in 2011 they lobbied on Intellectual property issues. Nothing you named has to do with intellectual property issues.

        They need to state what intellectual property issues they lobbied on in 2011, since they disclosed they did spent money on lobbying intellectual property issues in 2011.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

          Why do they have to disclose it? I don't understand your issue. You are retaining outrage with ZERO facts to back it up. You may claim that if it came out as something benign you will ease up on them, but based on your current attitude, I find that hard to believe.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:54pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

            And you seem to think Netflix is a corporation that can be trusted. Why is that? I can understand that you are saying Netflix has not been proven to be Pro-SOPA, or that it's superpac has not taken any proven action that could be considered Pro-SOPA, but why are you acting like a fan boy who
            can't accept that Netflix is hiding something, and it would be
            beneficial to the public to know what that is?

             

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

            •  
              icon
              E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 8:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

              Every company is hiding something. Just as every person is hiding something. However, I have been given nothing that would indicate that Netflix is hiding a nefarious pro-SOPA agenda.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                Digital Consumer (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 9:15pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

                Such as their original stance being Pro-SOPA?

                 

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Matthew Moore, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 12:47am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

                  Can you provide evidence? A link perhaps of such support? Because dollars to donuts says that the only thing you will find is support to a letter written months before SOPA was written. The letter said "piracy is bad, lets do something about it". It did not say "Lets get rid of the first amendment", which basically was what SOPA was about.
                  Just because you mom tells you to clean your room does not mean its her fault if you attempt to cleanse it with fire.
                  SOPA did not exist in any form at all when the offending letter was written, and they have not supported anything of the sort since. Therefore, you are wrong.

                   

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

                •  
                  icon
                  JMT (profile), Apr 10th, 2012 @ 12:54am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

                  They never had a pro-SOPA stance.

                   

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

                •  
                  identicon
                  Coyote, Apr 11th, 2012 @ 4:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

                  Netflix never had a pro-SOPA stance. At all. You're twisting facts about said company to suit your own agenda. Literally, they've never offically taken a stance for or against; their business demands such, because if they were pro-SOPA the internet would literally fuck them over it, like with GoDaddy.

                  They never had an anti-SOPA stance either, specifically because it would not make their negotiations with Hollywood fruitful -- not that they are anyways -- but actually make it harder for them to obtain the necessary licenses for the movies they want to rent out to people.

                  Lrn2reserch these things.

                   

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 8:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

            You are retaining outrage with ZERO facts to back it up.

            Sounds like the anti-SOPA platform.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 8:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

              Oh. I am sorry. Did you mean the side that had all the people who developed and currently run the internet telling Congress how badly it will mess things up. I guess they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Silly me, thinking experts know anything about the field they are experts in.

               

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

      •  
        identicon
        isakill, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 11:47pm

        Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

        Though i'm not denying what you or the article says, Why are they instructing their telephone operators to categorically refuse to answer the question of support? If the guy on the phone has said what their twitter said I would have been more reassured about their position than "I did some research on your question and have been informed to refuse to answer it"

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 5:00am

          Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

          Well, maybe because that's what their PR department is for, and it is outside the scope of the operators' job function? Side note: If calling the customer support line, you'll never get an answer about company policy that doesn't involve a customer account. That's just good practice.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      J, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 8:23pm

      Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

      You really think SOPA/PIPA are the only things a company like Netflix might want lobbyists for?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Scotchua, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 9:56pm

      Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

      The spent $500k lobbying the government for a myriad of reasons. It's completely normal for businesses to spend money lobbying for changes to legislation. Why would you assume it's about SOPA when Netflix is probably far more concerned about the anti-competitive of the movie/cable industry? How about net neutrality and Comcast trying to squeeze extra money out of them for the bandwidth consumption? The point is that the fact that they set up a SUPER PAC to lobby on their behalf doesn't inherently mean that they're doing Pro SOPA work, and the reports are just lazy reporting.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Bobatron, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 5:12am

      Re: $500K on

      You can lobby to have a bill you're "neutral" on affect your business less. Making sure the right provisions are in the law that keep your business legal.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Gareth, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:51pm

    Viral Outrage is Viral

    The comments on this entry are all the evidence you need for why this non-story proliferated.

    Seriously, folks -- try reading for comprehension.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:57pm

      Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

      Tell me about it. Frustration through the roof.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      jenl (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:09pm

      Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

      Nothing in the article above outlined what part of that $500K was spent on the "Intellectual property issues" that they lobbied regarding, or what stance they took. I again ask: What company spends money on lobbyists to take a basically neutral position on the biggest intellectual property issue of 2011?

      The Intellectual property issues they disclosed they spent lobbying money on last year may, as hard as it might be to believe, have had nothing to do with SOPA/PIPA. But until they disclose what "Intellectual property issues" they spent lobbying money on (and again, they already disclosed they did), SOPA/PIPA seems the most likely candidate.

      It may not be. But just shrugging and saying "OMGs you silly interwebs" or pointing to the article above specifying the non-intellectual property lobbying they did do isn't really an answer.

      Please remember it was the PAC's disclosure that they spent money lobbying regarding intellectual property issues that turned folks eye towards them - and perhaps shoddy reporting exacerbated the hysteria, but the question still remains.

      What part of the 500K was spent lobbying on Intellectual property issues, what were those issues, and what was Netflix's stance?

      The answer may be completely innocent, and show this has all been mass-hysteria - but so far, I haven't seen anyone answer it yet.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:18pm

        Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

        I don't know. It sounds like you were outraged based on the bad reporting, but want to continue in that outrage and are resorting to nitpicking the details.

        What would you consider proper disclosure in this case? Are you wanting a full line item accounting of every dollar spent on lobbying in the last 10 years with specific agendas tied to each one? Good luck getting that.

        Personally, I am content with Netflix's comments and behavior today and trust them enough to not question why they are creating this PAC.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          jenl (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

          I'd just like someone to step up and say "We were neutral on SOPA/PIPA but there was this Patent thing and we lobbied on that. We did not lobby SOPA/PIPA".

          My frustration is that I have now seen this not just on RT, but on Forbes, Politico, all with the same stance. In looking for pro-Netflix articles, I have seen Netflix, this, and Silicon Beat - and Silicon Beat had the disclosure that seemed to indicate where this came from.

          I disagree that this was "made up", and it seems to be stating they already spent money to lobby on intellectual property laws in a legal disclosure is an indication of where this firestorm started.

          While SOPA may be dead, CISPA is breathing life into some of the issues.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

            Considering the Forbes and RT articles are based off the Politico one and Politico mentions SOPA and PIPA as an aside, I don't think you have any real evidence to support any kind of Pro-SOPA agenda.

            So again, I think you are trying to retain your outrage despite the lack of facts backing it up.

             

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

          •  
            identicon
            MrWilson, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 8:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

            It seems like you want to connect dots that just aren't there. It's like saying, "I know Joe owns a gun and he's a bad person and someone somewhere got shot, so I'm sure Joe did it!"

            You know they spent money, but you don't know exactly for what.

            You know RT and others are all too eager to make unsubstantiated claims since they don't actually provide any evidence for their claims.

            You may or may not be aware of what kind of bias you have that makes you inclined to believe the worst without evidence.

             

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

      •  
        identicon
        Nathan, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:27pm

        Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

        "Please remember it was the PAC's disclosure that they spent money lobbying regarding intellectual property issues that turned folks eye towards them - and perhaps shoddy reporting exacerbated the hysteria, but the question still remains."

        The PAC hasn't received or given out any money yet, so how the hell could it have been the source for the information. I read the FEC filings, and there's nothing in there about the PAC's purpose.

        This was a thumbsuck because the reporter had no clue about Netflix's agenda and assumed that they must be pro-SOPA (a dead piece of legislation) because that would be good for Netflix.

        Stop making excuses for crock journalism and your propensity to believe it.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          jenl (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

          It was the legal disclosure about 2011's lobby money and what they spent lobbying money on pre-PAC. Sorry if I was unclear.

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    Jarkes, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:02pm

    THANK YOU. This is why I get info about these sorts of things from YOU, and not RT.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Nathan, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:08pm

    Anonymous really are cowards

    So anonymous starts this shitstorm without any substantiation and then doesn't have the balls to admit they are wrong and issue a retraction?

    No credibility, I tell ya, no credibility. The Interwebs are sick

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 12:23am

      Re: Anonymous really are cowards

      think about that for a second.. how does anonymous retract a statement? they are anonymous.. that's the point

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Nathan, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 12:50am

        Re: Re: Anonymous really are cowards

        140 characters or less. Something like: "Hey people, we overreacted. Reactivate your Netflix accounts." #DontBoycottNetflix

        No, only confident adults are comfortable doing that.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        JMT (profile), Apr 10th, 2012 @ 1:01am

        Re: Re: Anonymous really are cowards

        "how does anonymous retract a statement?"

        The same way they issued it. You really had to ask that?

         

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

  •  
    icon
    pogue972 (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:16pm

    The sooner people quit reading RT the better

    RT (Russia Today) wants to spin everything to their viewpoints. Reading, posting, & tweeting links from RT is a mistake in the first place, and trying to trust them for anything is a fail.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:23pm

    Regardless of whether or not this SuperPAC supports SOPA type legislation, the fact that it is making a Super PAC should be enough to deter people to begin with.

    SuperPACs should be illegal to begin with, regardless of what cause they fight for.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Nathan, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:29pm

      Re:

      They were illegal until the US SUPREME COURT ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent companies from setting them up. Sheesh, don't you people know anything?

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:25pm

    Perspective - Lobbying Spending in 2010

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    SethBW, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:29pm

    Re: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC

    Zachary you're too trusting. If ANY company is going to start lobbying with a super pac, they need to go WAY above and beyond with transparency and disclosure.

    We have WAY too many corporations with their hands in the lobby honeypot right now. They should damn well know better than to start a super pac without making it CRYSTAL CLEAR to the public and it's users what they are doing.

    Why? This should be OBVIOUS. Corruption is running rampant.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:45pm

      Re: Re: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC

      I never said I trust Netflix implicitly. I said I trust them that they did not set up this PAC for a pro-SOPA reason. They have enough benign and good reasons to set one up without needing SOPA as a driver. Until I see facts stating otherwise, that is enough for me.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    SethBW, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:34pm

    Netflix fucked up and that is the bottom line. If they want people to NOT boycott then they need to start funneling that flixPAC money into http://www.testpacpleaseignore.org/unseatlamar/
    and other anti-censorship / spy laws. That would definitely get people to join back up.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:34pm

    Frankly this whole article lacks a lot of information other than, they are cool, trust me. What is Netflix doing about the
    IP portion of their lobbying. What direction are they going? Is that not relevant?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:37pm

      Re:

      And why is no one actually answering this? No real answer? Any company starting a SuperPac should make you suspicious... period.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Coyote, Apr 11th, 2012 @ 4:52am

        Re: Re:

        No one's responding because, to be quite frank, you're pretending their's an issue here when, until facts state otherwise, there isn't.

        Put on your tinfoil hats, folks, and come right up on stage! Come one, come all, get your FREE tinfoil hats right here folks, FREE tinfoil hats here! Come on and get them, it's not like we're going to be running out of them soon! Don't forget to sign up for our Conspiracy Theory network, conspiracy theories ALL The time, 24/7! Learn all about them folks, ALL about them and you'll get, get this, a free hat with every purchase!

        Invite your friends, they too can join in on the conspiracy!

         

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

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:46pm

      Re:

      I advise you to read the comments as well as follow the links posted by Netflix in their Twitter feed. It answers your question quite clearly.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 6:01pm

        Re: Re:

        Of course, your answer is trust the company that set up a superpac to hide their money and lobby, sorry, I misunderstood.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 6:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No. My argument is to wait for more facts. So far there are no facts that contradict Netflix's stated position. Until there are, then there is no real reason to question it. Bring out all the assumptions and horror scenarios you want, they won't be any more true than they currently are.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Digital Consumer (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 9:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So Zachary, do you know what Netflix's stance on SOPA was before the public outcry? With your posts, I would assume that you don't.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              JMT (profile), Apr 10th, 2012 @ 1:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Instead of dancing around this, why don't you tell us, with citations.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Matthew Moore, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 1:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They had none. I am sure you have read my other responses, so I won't repeat them yet again.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              Coyote, Apr 11th, 2012 @ 5:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The bigger question is, do you? Cite one reputable source, that isn't from RT, that says 'We're pro-SOPA' that also doesn't include them in a bogus list that they didn't even actually sign onto.

              Cite one. Just one. That's all I'm asking, which is pretty fucking lenient here considering how bad citing a single source is. Guess what? You can't. I know you can't, you know you can't, everyone else here knows you can't. Just drop it with the 'pro-SOPA' argument because we both know it's bullshit. We ALL know you're pulling fucks out of your ass in order to put forth some sort of company-wide conspiracy, complete with tinfoil hats and a nuclear winter bunker.

              Until the facts state otherwise -- which they have not -- Netflix has never taken a pro-stance against SOPA. They take a neutral ground, as REQUIRED by their business model. If they took an anti-SOPA stance they would've suffered licensing issues from Hollywood, due to Hollywood's insistance on SOPA. If they did pro-SOPA, they would've taken a nosedive from the backlash, like GoDaddy, and customers would've been [rightly] pissed and refuse to use their service.

              They are neutral. It would've been nice to see them go anti-SOPA but the way their business model works is like this:

              If they took a stance against SOPA, Hollywood would see this as a prime example of opposition to their old, outdated BMs, which would incite them to be less trusting of Netflix, knowing that they do not find these anti-piracy measures acceptable, causing trust issues within the company. The executive monkey's would then take a stance -- either they would hike up the price of licensing fees to provide 'punishment' for Netflix in order to get those movies, or they would not offer them at all.

              The pro to this is free publicity for Netflix on the internet, and customers would feel much more trusting of them as a whole.

              If they had taken a pro-SOPA stance, the internet would've backlashed, boycotted or otherwise went against Netflix's decision either by protesting it [see: boycotting], which worked well for turning GoDaddy's stance, or they would look for alternative sources, making alternatives to Netflix a more thriving area, potentially. This would have a positive effect on Hollywood, as they would see the 'pirates' leaving for lesser services, either allowing them to lower the prices on licensing fees, giving a cut or what-have-you to Netflix, which wouldn't really help if it didn't have customers. Which it would, just not as many.

              The neutral stance is literally the best options Netflix has. If it had ever taken a pro-SOPA and anti-SOPA stance, the internet would know it. There are no citations or sources for your bullshit claims, so I would kindly ask you to shut the fuck up until you provide a legitimate source.

              I'm just sayin, you really really really need to research these things and cite some really good goddamn sources before anyone'll take your posts seriously.

               

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 6:06pm

    Why would Netflix support pro-IP copyright policies? That would only make negotiating better deals with the majors only more problematic than it already is. One thing about Netflix is that they've had a great line up independent productions. Now I can see where one of the major studios would like to take over Netflix ... but thats another headline.

    Netflix's business is dead with restrictive caps on bandwidth when more and more devices are able to connect to the internet. It's dead with poor and expensive infrastructure providing internet access. It's dead when ISP's policing and restricting content or offering their brand premier content only or making it difficult to get to alternatives (like Netflix).

    Rapidshare was listed as a rogue site in 2010; off the list in 2011 after investing in $150k into lobbying. It works. Any company not paying into the system is going to be suspect.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Digital Consumer (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 6:53pm

    Are you guys at Techdirt morons?

    "The point here is that this struggle, between those who want to control the Internet and not merely deliver it, and those who want it to be open and un-tiered is not over. Netflix just reminded us of that fact. Yes, the company did reverse its stance on SOPA, claiming neutrality, """""after sending a letter to Congress agreeing with its spirit""""", but now it is back."


    DO YOU FUCKING REMEMBER THAT NETFLIX HAD TO BE SHAMED OUT OF SUPPORTING SOPA? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU??

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Digital Consumer (profile), Apr 9th, 2012 @ 9:08pm

      Re:

      Let me explain to you about Superpacs... corporations make them so they can hide what they are doing.

      Hmmm...public is against SOPA, so I will say I am Neutral, make a Superpac that will fund Pro-SOPA and then act like I did nothing of the sort, and you can't follow the trail because Superpacs are protected.

      You guys defending Netflix aren't really that dumb are you? Seriously? Is streaming 9.99 a month with Netflix worth your soul?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Matthew Moore, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 12:53am

      Re:

      Again, Netflix never supported SOPA. Not even kinda. Did you read the letter? Bet you didn't. Its a page and a half. Read it. Nowhere does it support censorship. It only says piracy is bad and we should do something about it. Plus, it was written months before SOPA was. Not the same thing as supporting SOPA. If you want to hate on Netflix, go for it. But your facts, in this case, are wrong.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Will Ross, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 7:19pm

    You're wrong about Netflix's stance.

    "The truth is that Netflix was basically neutral on SOPA, knowing that it had to balance its technology side and the fact that it is constantly negotiating with the big Hollywood studios on deals."

    Untrue. Look at the attached link. Netflix CHANGED to neutral after the SOPA protests.

    Also, Netflix was strongly for SOPA before it changed on the 19th (The day AFTER the SOPA protest.)

    (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/9808-stop-online-piracy-act-s opa-overkill)

    "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pushing for enactment as well, along with Macmillan Publishers, Netflix, Viacom, and trade-mark dependent companies such as Nike, L’Oreal, and Acushnet."

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Will Ross, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 7:20pm

      Re: You're wrong about Netflix's stance.

      Put the first link in the wrong box. But here's the flip flop on the 19th

      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/netflix_hastings_does_sopa_flip_L3fVEHFu2bV8soHzFtQ3MN

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 5:12am

        Re: Re: You're wrong about Netflix's stance.

        Did you even read what you posted? I'm guessing that you didn't.
        But David Hirschmann, CEO of the Global IP Center at the US Chamber of Commerce,in Washington, told The Post, “Netflix sent a letter which was supportive of legislation that accomplished those [SOPA] goals.”

        This is what you are constantly on about, BUT! The next two lines:

        However, Netflix’s name was not on the list of 400 companies supporting SOPA provided to The Post yesterday.

        A company spokesman said: “Netflix has not taken a position in SOPA. It is not correct to assume the company initially had a position.”


        Seems to me that you did a full-stop one that letter that you still probably haven't read. The one that said 'piracy bad,' but said nothing about SOPA/PIPA since neither had even been announced. I know that reading EVERYTHING, and comprehending what others have written, is difficult, but it is critical to your stance.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Matthew Moore, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 1:04am

      Re: You're wrong about Netflix's stance.

      Great link! Try this one! http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/pressreleases/letter-359.pdf
      That's the actual letter that people grabbed the "SOPA supporters" from. The actual letter that you are so riled up about.
      Lets see: Piracy is bad, pirate websites are bad for stealing, lets stop them.
      Nope, I don't see anything about censorship (unless its censorship to arrest criminals and stop them from breaking the law). I see nothing about government control of the internet. I see nothing about arresting/fining common citizens for use of copywritten characters in such innocent things such as avatars.
      As a matter of fact, if you read that letter and look at how things are already done, you realize this letter is not actually asking for ANYTHING NEW AT ALL. Its asking for more of what is already going on.
      Also the letter was written 3 months before SOPA was.
      SOPA was/is bad. No doubt. This letter had nothing to do with SOPA, no matter what the media says. If you don't believe me, THEN READ THE DAMN LETTER. Its tiny. Itsy bitsy.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Alan, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 7:36pm

    I bet RT is in fact correct, remember, Netflex already agrees with the "spirit" of SOPA.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Phil Bowyer, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 7:37pm

    Does it really matter

    Who gives a crap about the why - the fact is that another company is lobbying government to get what THEY want (whatever that is).

    This is why the US is so screwed up, because corporations are buying politicians.

    I don't give a flying ballerina's ass why, I'm pissed they are doing it at all, and so should everyone in America.

    Sometimes people can't see the forest thru the trees.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 8:55pm

    simple solution

    How about we don't let companies lobby for goals in politics, unless lets say that they allow their consumers to have a say in what they use their money to lobby for. Nah, that's too Un-American isn't it?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Ferph, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 9:48pm

    FlixPAC is a PAC not a SuperPAC. While a SuperPAC can take in unlimited amounts of money and spend unlimited amounts of money without reporting any of the details, a PAC has to file a report every three months and has a limit on how much it can spend. I don't doubt the Netflix is a money grubbing corporation that would sell out its own customers for a bigger chunk of change. But you should at least be aware of the actual situation before you go flaming everybody.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    OWNtheNWO, Apr 9th, 2012 @ 11:39pm

    I don't trust any of the fortune 500.

    Not buying it, classic psychological warfare technique. Just like Obama with NDAA. He tells you he won't sign it, and then he does. He tells you he doesn't agree with the indefinite detention but then you find out Levin admitted on the floor that provision was specifically recommended from the administration.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Nathan, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 12:35am

    Is Anonymous now a front for the Chamber of Commerce?

    Think about it. The telco-cable-hollywood-chamber old boys are quietly pushing through CISPA and anonymous chooses to attack the one company that is most threatened by an ueven Internet. Has the Chamber infiltrated anonymous or lobotomized the bunch of them?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    febri, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 1:03am

    yes..netflix supporting sopa..

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Matthew Moore, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 1:19am

      Re:

      Source? To make it more accurate, follow that source to its source. Then that to its source. Bet you end up back to a letter that has nothing to do with SOPA.
      People say that Netflix supported the spirit of SOPA?
      SOPA was about government control and censorship.
      The letter that Netflix signed with 437 other companies? Was about stopping criminals.
      Personal feelings aside (I torrent), adversity creates innovation. You shut down one service, a better one pops up, its been that way since online piracy has existed. The letter is adversity. So really, who cares?
      SOPA however is another story completely. It would change the internet fundamentally. It would disney-fy the online world of which we live in, make it less real that it already is.
      That letter has nothing to do with SOPA, further evidenced by the fact that it existed before SOPA was conceived.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    lexieliberty (profile), Apr 10th, 2012 @ 6:45am

    Super Pacs are illegal.

    Minus the Supreme Court ruling. So they shouldn't have a Super Pac in the first place.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    lexieliberty (profile), Apr 10th, 2012 @ 6:46am

    Super Pacs are illegal.

    Minus the Supreme Court ruling. So they shouldn't have a Super Pac in the first place.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    titusandro, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 1:36pm

    Anyone who believes this is deluding yourself. This firm has a history of screwing over its consumers. I consider this recent move simply more of the same. I will be canceling my netflix account immediately. They are no better than the rest and dont deserve my loyalty.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    notOK, Apr 10th, 2012 @ 2:53pm

    Whatever Netflix

    The fact that they formed a PAC means they are not 'neutral', they have an agenda, though the agenda is likely 'protect our own asses at all costs', which is typical corporation operating procedure.

    I'm tried of corps using the money I pay them to buy laws, no matter what side they're on. That's not how it's suppose to work. What's the point of my vote if some corp backed PAC can just throw money at politicians and train them to roll over and beg like a good little dog?

     

    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