SOPA supporters list updated, GoDaddy not included

Last week, the US Congress House Judiciary Committee released their list of companies who support the Stop Online Piracy Act. Until that point we had a growing list of companies like TwitterRedditKaspersky, Mozilla, Wikipedia and Google who gave their opinion as to the problems SOPA would present to the Internet, but no clear idea of who was actually supporting it.

One company though drew the ire of the Internet community for their support, domain registrar and web host, GoDaddy.

Thanks to an online boycott, which has led to the departure of nearly 30,000 domains per day, GoDaddy has since reversed their position on the bill. But the reversal has not stopped people from moving their domains to other providers. In fact, people were doing so in such huge numbers that GoDaddy's systems seemed to think that legitmate transfer requests were actually people abusing their lookup system, preventing some people from moving to providers like Namecheap.

Many have seen GoDaddy's reversed position as just paying lip service to the Internet community backlash, but either way, they are now officially no longer listed as a supporter in the records of the US Congress. Today, the House Judiciary Committee released reduced version of their list. The list is down from four pages to three, as it also no longer includes many of the law firms who had reviewed the law but were not officially endorsing it, but that the committee included, something else the list was critized for outside of the technology community.

Even with GoDaddy officially off the list, the migration of domains to other providers will probably continue. It also remains to be seen which company will be the next target of backlash.

Updated SOPA Supporters

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Phone Marketplace reaches 50,000 apps mark

Next Story

LCD makers to pay over $553 million for price fixing

54 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So, I'm seeing all of these other companies on this list, including people like ESPN, McGraw-Hill, CBS, etc., etc.. I guess people are just picking and choosing who they want to boycott? I mean, if you are going to start a movement like this, don't be a hypocrite and either do it or not. Give it all or nothing.

For instance, Visa and Mastercard are on that list, but American Express is not. Guess what card I've used for the past 3 years? AMEX. I knew there was something good about them, hehe. Seriously, I did look for them on this list. If I saw their name on that list, I would have headed home, called them and cancelled my card because of this. Visa and Mastercard - You no longer get any of my services.

I'd boycott ESPN but if I do that then I'll never get to watch another CFB and that just can't happen..so I really don't know what to say. Would be funny to see someone hack their programming during the National Championship game and take the feed over...after all who cares to watch another boring Alabama/LSU game again?

flynempire said,
Thank you Intrinsica. We don't need stinking censorship on the internet

It's worth noting that you shouldn't not support it because of its attempt to stop online piracy. You shouldn't support it because once you start down the path of censorship, there's no real telling where it could end.

flynempire said,
Can someone please explain briefly what SOPA is and should we support or not? I am having a hard time understanding

SOPA = Stop Online Piracy Act. Basically it's an act that - if passed - would allow for censorship of the Internet. It's a bad thing, and anyone with half a brain cell should not support it.

Intrinsica said,

SOPA = Stop Online Piracy Act. Basically it's an act that - if passed - would allow for censorship of the Internet. It's a bad thing, and anyone with half a brain cell should not support it.

Anyone with half a brain cell would recognize the incredible bias in your post.

The SOPA allows the US government to request that internet service providers (like Comcast) block foreign websites that are hosting illegal content like pirated movies.

andrewbares said,

Anyone with half a brain cell would recognize the incredible bias in your post.

The SOPA allows the US government to request that internet service providers (like Comcast) block foreign websites that are hosting illegal content like pirated movies.

It sounds good on the surface, and supposedly, you have to prove a site is infringing before it is taken down. In fact, many people believe that corporations will request a ban on a website on a whim, and some judge will rubber stamp it like they do many warrants these days.

In other words, I don't like your site, I get find a single link that in the slightest seems infringing, and I get it shut down. Then the owner has to prove their innocence.

andrewbares said,
Anyone with half a brain cell would recognize the incredible bias in your post.

I think you'll find that I recognised that my original post could be construed as being bias (which was not my intention), and I then attempted to correct it in my following reply (which is in the next comment).

I'm surprised, that I don't see the National Hockey League on there also, since all other garbage sports are on that list.

I can't believe so many people support doing illegal things.

If a company in china is shipping illegal drugs into the US via FedEx, the United States should have the right to tell FedEx they cannot ship those orders.

Same thing with the SOPA... foreign website is hosting illegal content, US tells ISP (shipping company) to not redirect the DNS server address to their website, and the illegal content is blocked.

andrewbares said,
I can't believe so many people support doing illegal things.

If a company in china is shipping illegal drugs into the US via FedEx, the United States should have the right to tell FedEx they cannot ship those orders.

Same thing with the SOPA... foreign website is hosting illegal content, US tells ISP (shipping company) to not redirect the DNS server address to their website, and the illegal content is blocked.


Yeah, man. It's not like putting us behind a government-mandated firewall just like North Korea and China could ever be abused by major corporations and government.

Nobody would ever abuse a system that allows someone with enough money or influence to [url=david.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/godaddy-a-glimpse-of-the-internet-under-sopa.html]destroy millions of people's websites[/url] at the drop of a hat with little to no repercussions.

See, this is what we, as citizens, have to be careful with. The government passes law after law about "protecting us". And they very well may use it for protecting us.... for now. Once they have a system of laws set up to basically control your every action, there's a lot of room for abuse. The US government has absolutely NO NEED to do this at all. For one, extensions are already available for every major web browser to bypass SOPA. It will have an incredibly small impact doing what it's supposed to do, but will leave open many ways to abuse the system, should that ever be necessary.

We should absolutely not be giving our government control over everything. The government keeps getting bigger and bigger and when will it stop? When they have a hand in every single thing we do in life? The federal government should only be used to run the country as a whole, and enforce absolutely necessary laws. Not every law they feel like passing. They are out of control.

andrewbares said,
I can't believe so many people support doing illegal things.

If a company in china is shipping illegal drugs into the US via FedEx, the United States should have the right to tell FedEx they cannot ship those orders.

Same thing with the SOPA... foreign website is hosting illegal content, US tells ISP (shipping company) to not redirect the DNS server address to their website, and the illegal content is blocked.

Or... I think you are a drug mule. I report you to the police. They throw you in jail and lock the key, without any proof, basically guilty until proven innocent. And it is up to you to prove it...
In this case, the website is taken down, on someone else's say, and the whole time, the website is loosing business while they are trying to prove their innocence.

I'm surprised to see Christian organizations supporting it, considering some of the best known stories of Jesus were when he pirated bread, fish, and wine.

Unwonted said,
I'm surprised to see Christian organizations supporting it, considering some of the best known stories of Jesus were when he pirated bread, fish, and wine.

oh how i loled ;D

I moved away all my 48 domains from GoDaddy to NameCheap, it took me a whole day, but I didn't do almost anything, as the Support from NameCheap done everything for me. Heh.

SubZenit said,
I moved away all my 48 domains from GoDaddy to NameCheap, it took me a whole day, but I didn't do almost anything, as the Support from NameCheap done everything for me. Heh.

Moved my few domains over the last few days..has taken me longer than expected cause of register locks and whatever else godaddy had on em.

L'Oreal?
Because we're not worth it?

...and remember kids, just because GoDaddy is not on the list, doesn't mean they don't support it.
Clearly there are countless others like Apple who do not want their names published on this list.

Wait, wasn't there a previous article here saying that Microsoft and Apple were on that list?


...Well, I don't see them. Am I missing something here?

A few companies like Apple simply weren't openly opposing it. This was knee-jerk interpreted to mean they supported it, and the internet is a little...single minded about this sort of thing. The dumb villagers effect, and all that.

Tossing a little [Update] here and there is about as effective as a newspaper printing a retraction. Actually, no--less effective. Because a lot of sites (like Neowin) will put [Update] in an article while the headline still gives off the original--inaccurate--impression. Readers being what readers are, most still just see the headline, skim the article, and walk away feeling informed.

You know those surveys they do to see how smart Fox News viewers are compared to other networks? I'd LOVE to see a similar survey comparing visitors of various tech blog sites in terms of their awareness of actual [confirmed and referenced] facts in controversial issues. I think it'd be one helluva wake-up call.

/it's a little irritating when misinterpreted info goes so far as to get ingrained in public thought--like the whole iPhone users have more sex thing, which has been in magazine after magazine, appeared on TV, blogs, and more, when the original data actually stated that iPhone users simply had more partners, and never even investigated the frequency of the act

For all the boycotting going on, I see that pretty much everyone behind Hulu is on there. I'm sure EVERYBODY raging at GoDaddy has cancelled their Hulu memberships (paid or not), yes? Out of protest of course.

Godaddy is still actually supporting SOPA since they won't be effected by it if SOPA passes. Since they helped create the bill, they were sneaky enough to write themselves down so they can't be forced to do anything.

This crap still? The controversial line regarded ALL registrars, and only mentioned GoDaddy as an example. This is very well established now, and at this point anyone saying GoDaddy wrote "an exception for themselves" just looks ignorant. Granted, that's a LOT of people looking ignorant, but that's what they get.

The Internet. Where we make fun of 'sheeple' at every passing opportunity...until we're AT WAR!!!1

To make sense of certain companies on the list, you have to look at the personalities running them and other affiliations. Business ties take all forms. Personally, I don't care for any of the excuses anymore, time the people had our own ZERO tolerance rule.

Why are the cosmetic companies such as Revlon etc on the list of supporters? Am I missing something.

Some of the entities in the supporters list sound irrelevant. International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers...Church Music? Please. Does Baby Jesus support P2P? LMAO

Edited by aniv, Dec 27 2011, 11:47pm :

aniv said,
Why are the cosmetic companies such as Revlon etc on the list of supporters? Am I missing something.

I noticed L'Oreal on there too, which I thought was abit bizarre ?!?!!?

Ferret said,

I noticed L'Oreal on there too, which I thought was abit bizarre ?!?!!?

If they can smash internet freedom it'll be harder to sell fake cosmetics online, that's why their interested -.-

thealexweb said,

If they can smash internet freedom it'll be harder to sell fake cosmetics online, that's why their interested -.-

Makes sense. Need to put some banners in front of Macy's, Dillars, etc to boycott Revlon, L'Oreal etc.

aniv said,
Why are the cosmetic companies such as Revlon etc on the list of supporters? Am I missing something.

Some of the entities in the supporters list sound irrelevant. International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers...Church Music? Please. Does Baby Jesus support P2P? LMAO

cosmetics companies have huge IP interests

aniv said,
Why are the cosmetic companies such as Revlon etc on the list of supporters? Am I missing something.

I think many of the cosmetic companies have been having trouble with knock-off's pretending to be the actuall product internationally. If I remember correctly one of them battled to take down thousands of domains that were ripping them off. They most likely believe SOPA will help prevent this or help enforce them internationally.

aniv said,
Why are the cosmetic companies such as Revlon etc on the list of supporters? Am I missing something.

Some of the entities in the supporters list sound irrelevant. International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers...Church Music? Please. Does Baby Jesus support P2P? LMAO

Bill goes after Copyright infringement in general. Revlon wants to prevent knockoff versions of their products (usually sold online).

aniv said,
Why are the cosmetic companies such as Revlon etc on the list of supporters? Am I missing something.

Some of the entities in the supporters list sound irrelevant. International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers...Church Music? Please. Does Baby Jesus support P2P? LMAO

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a Labor Union for Low Voltage Cabling Technicians. In California, Nevada and Texas they are the major Union that represents the interest and protects the rights of those that install Cat5, Fiber and other LV Cable.

Again, I don't understand why they would be supporting this except for the vast number of members they have in their Union.

Thats a pretty messed up list, though still primarily the usual suspects (Copyright holders and lawers). It doesn't enjoy the support of a single tech company of note.

Dashel said,
Thats a pretty messed up list, though still primarily the usual suspects (Copyright holders and lawers). It doesn't enjoy the support of a single tech company of note.

Time Warner and Comcast?

Nelsoon said,
It's Time Warner... not Time Warner Cable that is against it
and for Comcast, the reason is NBC.

Agreed, Time Warner, as in owner of Time Magazine, Warner Bro. Entertainment, HBO, Turner Broadcasting (CNN, TBS, TNT, Showtime, Cartoon Network....)
Comcast is of course NBC/Universal, but also makes it's own content, and is a major stakeholder in Hulu. Comcast Media Holdings also owns a whole bunch of media companies, such as the Telemundo channels, many local NBC affiliates, The Comcast Sports networks, SyFy, Oxygen, USA networks, Fandango, Plaxo, Tripwire, and a bunch of others. Looking at the list here: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=comcast they even own the Philadelphia 76ers.

The weird for me is the cosmetic companies, but I assume it is due to knock-offs as mentioned below.

thealexweb said,
Wasn't it revealed yesterday, that GoDaddy was netrual on this issue and not against it?

I'd say that too if thousands of my customers were suddenly leaving me.

thealexweb said,
Wasn't it revealed yesterday, that GoDaddy was netrual on this issue and not against it?

They "officially" don't support it but quietly behind the scenes they still do support SOPA.

thealexweb said,
Wasn't it revealed yesterday, that GoDaddy was netrual on this issue and not against it?

No, they did not. They said they are not supporting it NOW in its current form, but they will in the future in whatever form people agree with it, which is highly unlikely because people are usually unaware of details of anything the govt. passes as law.

thealexweb said,
Wasn't it revealed yesterday, that GoDaddy was netrual on this issue and not against it?

Just because someone is not on the list of supporters,does not automatically mean they are against it. I'm sure there are a bunch of people/corporations who are for SOPA that are not on the list.

In the case of GoDaddy, I also think they are currently neutal/leaning toward supporting. And why not, they put a lot of work into getting it into it's current form. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was much worse than it is now. That does not make the current form acceptable. It is still to far reaching, and gives the government way to much power. It would be much better to scrap it all and start over.