Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/16/internet-giants-place-full-pag.html

by andrewdumont • 15 years ago

687 111 15 years ago

boingboing.net

swasheck2• 15 years ago

Well played, MS and Apple.

chollida1• 15 years ago

I don't want this to sound snarky but....

Do you know that they were invited and declined?

is it possible that no one asked them to join, or declined to let them join?

yahelc2• 15 years ago

It's certainly in Apple's interest that this pass. Less piracy -> More iTunes customers. More iTunes customers -> More iOS devices sold. More iOS devices sold -> More profit for Apple.

swasheck2• 15 years ago

Thank you for the correction. I don't know that but just assumed (and yes, I know what that leads to :)) that they opted out given the collective weight of the other orgs involved.

Hates_• 15 years ago

They are in a totally different market. Why would they be a signee?

thematt2• 15 years ago

What are you talking about? Microsoft is in the same market as at least 5 of those companies listed.

pixcavator• 15 years ago

And Amazon.

yesbabyyes• 15 years ago

Microsoft is a supporter of SOPA: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money

mikemoka• 15 years ago

Web companies should know how to write a readable text, it's pity they could just come up with something like that.

This text is not coincise, it doesn't draw the attention of the reader to any specific point and it shows several other shortcomings, if the message ever comes across I am pretty sure this page won't help.

thomasgerbe• 15 years ago

Yes, they could've come up with one or two sentences that appealed to the emotion and pushed the reader to a custom url relating to this issue. Or even an exaggerated screenshot of what could happen if the bill passes.

Ah well. Rational writeups are all fine and good but not when you probably have a split second to capture the attention with an ad.

lancewiggs• 15 years ago

It's aimed at the committee members, not the average punter, and it is serious because an emotional non-fact-based driven approach would backfire. The NYTimes location hints at the power they have to do more.

prawn• 15 years ago

It might just be that verbose text does more to differentiate this from normal advertising, and perhaps enforce the impression of these companies writing from a position of expertise.

Large image, looks like advertising, easy to overlook.

Dense columns of text, looks like bland content, easy to overlook.

Ogilvy-styled image, headline and text, looks like advertising.

Headline and then text that looks like the letter it is, hey, let me just skim this and see what these guys are upset about. Wow, Facebook and Twitter. And so it goes.

lambda• 15 years ago

Sometimes, longer, more thoughtful text can be more powerful than short, punchy advertising copy.

Igor_Bratnikov• 15 years ago

Glad to see a public stance by the internet community

ck2• 15 years ago

Where is the url in there for more information/followup? Wasted opportunity.

I don't mean to diminish this effort but just imagine this kind of response every time we decided to declare war somewhere far far away. I'd be impressed. Certainly sending people to be maimed or killed is just as critical?

philwelch3• 15 years ago

Don't you remember the momentous uproar over Iraq? There were non-stop protests for at least a year before the war actually started, and for years afterwards.

There were no similar protests over Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya because the US was only providing air support, and because Afghanistan started only a month after 9/11 and everyone was still shocked and compliant.

Vivtek2• 15 years ago

ck2 probably doesn't remember the momentous uproar over Iraq because the media was not at all interested in covering the protests. Unless you were in a city where a protest was going on and physically saw it, it basically didn't happen.

And there were protests over Afghanistan; I participated in some myself. We weren't all shocked and compliant - the first thing I said upon seeing burning towers on the TV at the Indiana University Student Union was "Reichstag", and I wasn't wrong.

fpp• 15 years ago

Have a look at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money - which companies / interest are supporting - who received money from them - who's opposing - who the opposing groups sponsored etc

jamiequint• 15 years ago

There was also a full page ad in today's Wall Street Journal, same letter. http://pic.twitter.com/jisFPt4s

jpdoctor• 15 years ago

Full page ad? Big deal. Obviously they screwed up by not buying a bunch of senators and congressman.

Fools.

protomyth• 15 years ago

The tech industry has enough money to buy 10x more lobbyists than the entertainment industry. This would be a wiser investment than the ads.

redthrowaway2• 15 years ago

Or they could just buy controlling shares of a majority of mpaa members and end this silliness for good.

teej• 15 years ago

I know it may seem that way on the surface, but the proponents of this bill are larger than you think.

The MPAA represents companies with a combined market cap of $250 billion dollars. That's small enough for us to beat, but Pfizer ($150bn market cap) and Microsoft ($220bn market cap) are also major proponents. All together, there's a LOT of muscle behind this act, lobbyists alone aren't going to cut it.

meterplech• 15 years ago

Not to sound naive here- but why does Microsoft support this if all the others don't?

oacgnol• 15 years ago

My guess is this approach will work well for the tech industry in the short term. The real change needs to happen in the system and with those who represent us. I'm looking forward to a (hopefully) more computer-literate generation of representatives being elected in the coming years.

wavephorm• 15 years ago

Or just buy the politicians like the regulated industries do.

therandomguy2• 15 years ago

I wonder if we can start a site called PoliticiansAgainstInternet.org, get it a lot of publicity and sway the votes away from them. It should be so popular that politicians will dread getting on that list. Maybe Anon can dig up more dirt and expose it on there?

therandomguy2• 15 years ago

*not sure how to edit the comment, hence replying.

The site would have "pay to promote button". People who care keeps donating which will directly fuel the ad campaigns set up on adsense, facebook ads, twitter promoted links etc. It will be all over the place.

thematt2• 15 years ago

If Google was serious they'd put something on their front page. The readership of the New York Times is nothing compared to Google's traffic.

jrockway3• 15 years ago

With great power comes great responsibility. If Google uses their core product for every political battle they need to engage in, it cheapens the brand. SOPA is evil, but it's not going to severely injure Google. So it's not worth cheapening their product for.

redthrowaway2• 15 years ago

While I agree with you that they need to be careful not to cheapen their brand, I'd argue that they have a history of displaying custom doodles for far less significant things. A simple "stop censorship" doodle, akin to those being displayed by a number of other websites, would go a long way without cheapening Google's brand.

MBlume• 15 years ago

> SOPA is evil, but it's not going to severely injure Google.

Am I reading the bill in an overly alarmist way? It sounded to me like SOPA would make YouTube basically impossible to run.

dylangs10304• 15 years ago

"Do no evil." - Google.

Seriously, though, I agree. A company should not make politics corollary to their brand name. If Google takes a stand on things by taking advantage of its vast user base, it will be disingenuous. A blog post is one thing. Plastering a message across their header on the home page is far different. Most Google messages are fairly innocuous, holiday themed graphics. There is a time and a place for political infrastructure, and it is not the same as for the corporate infrastructure. This is why SOPA is a problem in the first place - corporations and politics becoming intertwined in unproductive and abusive ways. You make a stand outside your brand, and you do it with integrity by not forcing it upon your user base. I agree with the theme that SOPA is bad, but I don't think it'd be good for Google to fight by putting it on their webpage.

Mozilla, I can see. Yahoo! I can't. Reddit, I can see. Google, again, I can't. Different kinds of traffic, different amounts, and different audiences.

run4yourlives• 15 years ago

They probably will... better to escalate the response than to go apeshit prematurely.

shareme• 15 years ago

I am very sure the implied threat of we are considering moving our data centers out of the US has probably already been thrown behind the scenes

Jach• 15 years ago

Hey, if we're going to have a fascist government anyway, I'd rather Google be the corporation pulling the strings... Too bad it's just not in their DNA.

iradik2• 15 years ago

Yeah or censor google search results from any .gov clients!

artursapek• 15 years ago

Very nice. It's a nice touch that the logos at the bottom are in alphabetical order. I want a copy of this

bobbles2• 15 years ago

95% of people would look at that wall of text and turn the page.. they really needed something that would actually draw in peoples attention if they want it to get noticed

krschultz• 15 years ago

The 5% that read it are the ones who influence policy in Washington. The most powerful thing on that page is not the text - it's the logos on the bottom. The average senator can not tell you the difference between a DNS server and a Warez server, but they know who Facebook, Google, eBay, et al are.

Remember, there are a lot of people out there who go to Google and type in www.gmail.com into the search box on a daily basis. To them, Google IS the internet.

bobbles2• 15 years ago

I was just thinking about it and I'm sure if all the page said was 'Stop SOPA' and had all of those logos there.. I would be wanting to find out more about the issue.

d0mine• 15 years ago

The irony. The giants of Internet advertising spread their message via dead-tree paper ads.

qsun• 15 years ago

because dead-tree paper is cheaper

baby• 15 years ago

What is also impressive is the presence of Zynga in the internet giants club.

myoder• 15 years ago

I was thinking the exact same thing!

wtvanhest• 15 years ago

I was thinking the opposite. Outside of Silicon Valley people say things like, you know Zynga... the company that made farmville. People think it is a 1 employee company. (I know they have a $B+ valuation, but no one outside the valley does, especially not law makers)

muppetman3• 15 years ago

This is great. It's just a shame the last time anyone picked up a paper was about 10 years ago. Can't argue with the sentiment though.

suivix• 15 years ago

Senior citizens pick up papers, and all of them go to the voting booths.

muppetman3• 15 years ago

Yes, but do Senior Citizens recognise many of those brands?

impendia• 15 years ago

I happened to buy today's NYT, as I often do. I find it nice to go offline and hold a physical paper.

grandalf• 15 years ago

If you're in the tech industry and you realize how stupid this proposed law is, realize that it's no more stupid than the vast majority of laws passed by congress, you're just better equipped to judge it.

JoshTriplett2• 15 years ago

"when a respected information source covers something where you have on-the-ground experience, the result is often to make you wonder how much fecal matter you’ve swallowed in areas outside your own expertise." -- Rusty Russell

damoncali2• 15 years ago

Am I the only one that did a double-take when I saw Zynga on there?

westbywest• 15 years ago

Their relationship with Facebook probably influenced (compelled?) them to sign onto this.

Indeed, one could imagine a potential copyright infringement complaint leveled at Zygna by Paramount, claiming that "Mafia Wars" borrows too heavily from the "Godfather" films. Completely frivolous, indeed, but possibly threatening enough to Zygna's daily operations for them to heed warnings about these bills.

muppetman3• 15 years ago

I was a bit surprised too. I certainly don't count them in the same league as the others mentioned.

cynest• 15 years ago

Why not Zynga? Their demographic is not piratically inclined and due to the nature of their product piracy is probably not an issue to an extent it is for hollywood. However, their existence is at least for the moment linked to facebook. Anything that threatens facebook threatens zynga. If facebook has to police their users' content, you can bet at least some of the necessary money will come from facebook's cut of zynga's profits. Also, this is publicity right before their IPO.

dylangs10304• 15 years ago

Despite their recent PR blunder (and what a blunder it was), they're still considered a tech giant. Their IPO passed a billion benchmark, so they are in a position to say, "Hey, look at us, we kinda know a thing or two about the internet."

damoncali2• 15 years ago

Giant? There are a bajillion small tech companies across the country that make more money than that.

rbanffy5• 15 years ago

Remember: companies are not your friends. The may be your allies this time, but the may also turn against you if the tide changes.

sidwyn• 15 years ago

Besides the gist of the ad, I noticed that Facebook did not use their logo without a background (AOL too).

roxtar• 15 years ago

Did anyone notice the missing Godzilla-head in Mozilla's logo?

dmboyd• 15 years ago

> We support the bills’ stated goals "providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign "rogue" websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting"...

Why doesn't anyone just call bullshit on the whole concept of the US extending its law to apply to the rest of the world?

dylangs10304• 15 years ago

Well, because while that's a popular theme in United States history, it's not relevant here. The websites in other countries would not be literally sued into oblivion if their servers aren't in U.S. territory - they'd be blocked via DNS intervention.

So, really, the United States wouldn't be extending its law to apply anywhere else but the United States. It would be blocking what content is viewable within the borders. But this isn't even the real issue - because you can still bypass this using the IP address directly instead of the domain name. The real issue is the corporate abuses which could be allowed to take place within our borders if websites aren't deemed to be doing enough. It could make the internet environment tyrannical in content control for fear of websites being shut down.

natch2• 15 years ago

A TLDR skim of this ad by the average NYT reader will see only this: We support the bill.

Yes, I omitted the words "goals of the" [edit: 's stated goals] but I'm talking about what the average reader will get out of the ad before they flip to the next page.

Not good, imho. And yes, they do care about the average reader. If they were trying to reach people other than the average reader, there are better ways to do that.

lotu• 15 years ago

That is irrelevant as the average NYT reader is not the target of this ad. This ad is a letter to the people listed in the first line, delivered to them via the NYT. Unlike a letter which will be handled by an intern this letter will be read directly by the congressmen it is addressed to, and by spending the money for the full page ad they express who serious they are about this.

natch2• 15 years ago

Then it's even worse, because the average congressperson is not nearly as bright as the average NYT reader.

skb_• 15 years ago

I've been thinking a bit about this and it's more a detriment to the United States than it is to the Internet. Censorship is a losing battle, especially with an educated public. There's just no way that this can work, it's a perpetual cat and mouse at best.

I feel that SOPA will pass, there's no doubt in my mind - it will just be a much watered down version, much like any other bill that passes these days. Even this so-called "anti-SOPA" ad is not really anti-SOPA, it just disagrees with certain aspects of the bill. They're basically asking for a compromise and they'll get it. There will probably be a long and expensive process in order to shut sites down. There will probably be some clauses about staying up if you are compliant with take-down notices. And there will probably be more bureaucrats added to the system, with jobs that are essentially useless and another needless expense. Ultimately, it will be like the War on Drugs, War on Terror, TSA and what have you; some far-fetched, pie in the sky plan that never had a chance of working in the first place.

The sad part is that people in Washington don't understand the consequences of what they are doing. They seem to think they have a blank check to play around with. Slowly but surely, they add things like this and the government gets bigger and more expensive to run. You can't just fire bureaucrats, they have a knack for sticking around.

I can't help but feel like I'm watching the slow death of a once great nation. I haven't heard anything lately coming out of Capitol Hill that has any semblance of intelligence.

theoj• 15 years ago

>> And there will probably be more bureaucrats added to the system, with jobs that are essentially useless and another needless expense.

This is really twisted. The industry is taking something it wants to do -- draconian copyright enforcement -- and passing that activity (plus the cost) to taxpayers. The system is broken. You can clearly see that when special interest groups that represent a small minority can get taxpayer money and spend it against the majority while at the same time getting the majority to pay.

tomjen3• 15 years ago

If that is the kind of ads tech giants make, then we have all lost.

This needs more Don Draper and less wall of text. It needs to tell a compelling story with a righteous underdog fighting the good fight which would be squashed if this law passes. It needs to paint anybody who support it as a traitor to America(TH).

And it needs to rebrand it the "Killing the American Dream Act" so that nobody can politically afford to support it.

marquis• 15 years ago

Just posted: Republican Darrell Issa says "it has no chance of passage".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/idUS40280193622011...

panthera• 15 years ago

The ad proves the old maxim true: "Everyone's a reactionary against something they know about."

Nearly all of the companies listed in this ad were heavy donors to the Obama administration. Now they understand what their donation got them.

Everyone in the Internet industry feels extreme pain when these regulations are proposed, and rightly so. SOPA is an insane example of a bankrupt government flailing about.

However, the same commentariat thinks that regulation is somehow "necessary" in medicine, law, or energy.

("<Calamity-of-the-day> could have been prevented if we just had more rules on the books! Surely the evil profit-making corporations would cut every corner they could, just to make a buck! It's not like taking it in the shorts every single day in the press will hit their stock price!")

Once you've tasted government intervention in your industry, you'll want some mouthwash.

i386• 15 years ago

Its simple to think that regulation is good and bad if you generalize and say that no industry should/should not be regulated just because it causes inconvenience.

Regulation should be in place to put safeties into a system. What i mean by that is don't let people "cheat" too much. By cheating the reasonable bounds of the system the whole system would suffer (people dying, civil liberties slashed or financial systems collapsing).

That said industries you would want tight regulation on is in the food or medical industries.

Nothing is black and white but always varying shades of grey.

iradik2• 15 years ago

Huh. Google should take out an ad on its front page!

Maybe censor all requests coming from the .gov domains.

Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

Related Stories