Which companies on the list send people to Demo Day?

Mastercard (and Visa) are both on the PDF I linked to above..<a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...</a>EDIT: Just realized this was the same as the GP link.

&#62; They even had a "witness" at the first hearingMastercard's VP Linda Kirkpatrick was the only witness at that hearing who testified with any semblance of being not 100% pro-SOPA at that hearing.&#62; As noted yesterday, Visa is actually officially against these bills, which makes this one at least somewhat interesting, because the story we'd been hearing was that MasterCard was in favor of them. But Kirkpatrick's testimony is actually kind of surprising. While we expected it to be very pro-SOPA... it turns out that she's very concerned about the massive compliance and liability costs of the bill. Kirkpatrick explains how MasterCard works, and goes to great lengths to say it's against the company's policy to use its cards for any transactions that break the law. And it already has an existing anti-piracy policy, which allows law enforcement and rights holders to bring such infringement using its cards to the company's attention. It then explains its investigation and notification policy. This is all very interesting... and basically makes an anti-SOPA point: given that MasterCard already does this, why does it need SOPA?<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/00035716786/look-testimony-given-todays-sopa-lovefest-congressional-hearings-with-surprise-mastercard.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/00035716786/look-t...</a>

Both are there, and with their take in the Wikileak blockade it should not surprise anybody to see them supporting SOPA.

Mastercard should be there, too. They even had a "witness" at the first hearing.Can we get a list for the companies supporting Protect IP, too? We don't want that one to slip past us, either.

eww... the Graphic Artists' Guild is on the list. That's really disappointing. <a href="https://www.graphicartistsguild.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.graphicartistsguild.org/</a>

Wow, surprising to see Visa on that list. Here's a direct link to the list on the techcrunch article.<a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...</a>

If that is the case, then the organization is ill.  Best to stay away from it, in case it happens to be contagious.

Unless they're different people in the organization, which is likely the usual case. Not that I disagree with the sentiment.

&#62; I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science.And there exists Catholic priests who are pedophiles, that doesn't make Catholicism and pedophilia compatible. Nor are science and religion compatible. Those people just have an ability to tolerate or ignore their own cognitive dissonance because their religious beliefs are so strong.

But we're not talking about just any odd collection of investors. As I understand it, Y Combinator specifically relates to Internet-centric business models.SOPA seems wholly destructive to this sector of the economy.

The more straightforward argument is the moral one: SOPA is wrong, because it privileges the few over the many. But that's not quite as snappy.

There are, by definition, no good scientists who allow their religious beliefs to dictate their science. Some religious people are able to separate their personal irrationality from their professional rationality, and that's just fine.

This is not just a generic religious scientist. It's more analogous to rejecting a young-Earth creationist from a study on evolution. The link here is much more direct than general rationality.

&#62; nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science.Considering that 95% of the National Academy of Science is atheist, the correlation is still pretty relevant.Clueless people can be successful investors, luck is always a factor, but someone who supports SOPA probably lacks a certain technical background or ethics.

&#62; I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist?That's because the underlying assumptions are false. Being religious doesn't require one to be "clueless about rationality" and supporting SOPA doesn't requre the supporter to be clueless about technology -- they may as well hope to benefit from breaking the Internet.As every regulation (the more severe, the better) it will give an advantage to established companies over startups and newcomers, maybe even allow the former to became gate-keepers of the Internet business; DMCA allowed for attempts at censorship (silencing criticism by claiming trademarks), SOPA will take it to a whole new level; supporting SOPA signals loyalty to the entertainment industry; etc.

PG has argued elsewhere that the key to becoming a successful startup is to be good[1]. Since SOPA is bad, organizations that support it are malovelent and so startups cannot succeed if they are beholden to malevolent investors.[1]<a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html</a>

I agree that line of reasoning is not fallacy free. but if you think in terms of probabilities, it may be safe heuristic to make a stance on..Update: I mean probability of a venture backing a sopa supporter(company/startup) being anti-sopa is very low.. So it's a good heuristic to assume they are sopa supporters instead of innocent(technologically clueless) bystanders.

"I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist?"Because the argument itself is a fallacy. Believing that God exist does not make you less rational that believing that God does not exist(witch uses to be the theological affiliation of the people that proclaim the statement).One or the other is a prejudice. If the statement were true the best option should be to be agnostic, to be able to consider both options as true, and try one and then the other. The ancient Greeks used this thinking methodology regularly.They knew that believing our beliefs are true is a trap, everybody believes that their believes are true.Even with wrong believes you could explore options that makes you find a valid solution. Columbus calculations(believes) for getting to Japan were terrible wrong, but it was useful anyway.

It makes sense if you stand by your principles.In some cases that's very important.

I've seen the argument: if someone is so clueless about rationality as to be religious, how could they make a good scientist? And the "answer" is: nevertheless, there exist religious people who do good science.So I'm not convinced by the argument here. It makes too many unstated assumptions.I support this boycott, and this argument might make good rhetoric, but I wouldn't use it directly to evaluate investors.

Dumb money vs smart money.Sometimes dumb money will kill a startup.

how could they be good investorsBecause they have a checkbook? Does General Dynamics care if pacifists buy their stock?Since YC doesn't seem to sell to media-providers I suppose they won't be losing much, but seriously? If GE wrote me a billion dollar check, I'd take it no matter my politics.

Why do you bring "fairness" into this discussion?YC has a fiduciary responsibility as well.Corporations that are pro-SOPA don't make PR statements saying, "We are pro-SOPA because it will make us money."Instead they say, "SOPA is good for America! Anyone opposed is a misinformed basement dweller!"When pg says, "Anyone pro-SOPA is stupid" why don't you interpret it as pg discharging his fiduciary duty?Why do you apologize for sociopathic lies in large corporations, but then criticize self-interested statements from small corporations?I'm questioning the basic assumptions you take toward this issue. I find your attitude here baffling and, honestly, horrifying.If corporations are supposed to tell PR-friendly lies to benefit their bottom line, shouldn't Paul Graham be telling PR-friendly lies to benefit his bottom line?By extension, when you write that, are you telling PR-friendly lies? Which fiduciary duty are you discharging when you write that? Does SOPA benefit your bottom-line?If SOPA benefits your bottom-line, shouldn't you be going around telling sociopathic lies to stop it? That's what the CEO of Pfizer is doing... you are your own CEO and you have a fiduciary duty to yourself.If it's socially acceptable for corporations to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, then it must be made socially acceptable for individuals to tell profit-motived sociopathic lies, and any appeal to "you're not being fair!" must be recognized as pure rhetoric designed to fool the gullible."Guuuuyyyys! Be nice to the SOPA supporters! They're only acting like Democracy-destroying sociopaths for their own personal profit! It's just not fair if you call them mean names!"

&#62; The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility.In other words, the corporation does not hate me, but I am made of atoms that it can use to make a profit?

You appear to be suggesting a variation on the Nuremberg defense."Your honor, I'm not evil! I was just following orders... errr.. I mean I had a responsibility to my shareholders!"I'm sorry, I simply cannot take your line of reasoning seriously.

&#62; fiduciary responsibility"Fiduciary" derives from latin words meaning "faith" and "trust". You could reasonably rephrase it as "duty of good faith". It's just as vague as it sounds. It does not mean you have to do everything that's best for "the bottom line", either in the short or long term.In fact, absent actions that amount to fraud or deception, or that clearly breach laws, bylaws, or contractual arrangements, it is virtually impossible for shareholders to sustain an action for breach of fiduciary duty.Not supporting a bad law that is not in the best interests of the world is not even close to a breach of fiduciary duty as normally applies in a corporate context.

That's not really fair. The people who run corporations have a fiduciary responsibility. (There are of course caveats, and we can argue all day over whether or not SOPA is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, but you get the point.)If you are a movie studio, SOPA is a great idea for your bottom line.I don't think it's fair to call everyone who is in favor of SOPA either evil or stupid, even if SOPA itself is both. I can understand why YC wouldn't want them around, but I can't necessarily say they wouldn't be good investors.

I'm curious: does not allowing SOPA-supporting companies at YC Demo Day mean the SOPA-supporting companies won't be investing in YC companies? I am not familiar with the process; is this just cutting them out of the very first round, or is something being done to prevent SOPA-supporting companies from investing at all?

No, it's a demagogical argument, but it makes for great press, and PG's making it displays keen awareness of that fact.  I applaud him on that!  :-)

""If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?""That is a brilliant point.

Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs.There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash. I consider them un-American traitors.

SOPA isn't just about copyright: the blacklist is also intended to be used against foreign product counterfeiters, and fashion, drugs &#38; shoes are among the most counterfeited products.

Probably because they want to use SOPA to shut down websites selling "counterfeit" merchandise.

The push for these bills really started years ago when pharma companies were desperately trying to prevent the purchase of drugs from Canada and other countries. The entertainment aspect is rather new and actually somewhat secondary.

&#62; I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :(Back when I was in academia, Elsevier had a clear reputation as the most "evil" academic publisher, because of its extortionate journal prices and its active resistance to any method of information dissemination which would reduce its profits (for example, lower-cost online access, or friendlier contracts with its authors). See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controversies" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controv...</a>.Apparently nothing's changed.

FYI: That isn't American Apparel on the list — it's an industry group with a similar name that just so happens to count American Apparel as a member — amongst thousands of others.<a href="http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/14732754002/sopa-american-apparel" rel="nofollow">http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/14732754002/sopa-americ...</a>Now's a good time to emphasize that not everything an industry group does is supported by individual members.

Some of these companies are just so random... Why, for instance, does Adidas, L'Oreal, American Apparel, Rite Aid, Pfizer, etc. even have a stance on SOPA? I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :(

&#62;judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf'Rouge websites'... Really ? How about figuring out that spelling thing before trying to pass legislation...Or did we miss something and all this SOPA fuss is actually about misspelled counterfeit cosmetics exclusively?

Take a look at the front page of the committee's web site:&#62;Markup Shows Strong Support for SOPA (12/16/2011)&#62;SOPA Has Strong Support (12/15/2011)&#62;Smith: Critics Continue to Spread Lies about SOPA (12/14/2011)This is about as divorced from reality as you could possibly get. If this country is not the definition of a corporate oligarchy I don't know what is.

Here is the one directly from the SOPA .gov site:<a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...</a>

Leading to the Copyright Act of 1976, BTW.

I love how Xerox supports SOPA.I mean, their entire company was founded around a device that facilitates copyright infringement.

This is a very important clarification because I think many folks believe that if they can hammer on the specific failings of SOPA, they will somehow "win." Fact of the matter is that IP issues on the Internet are not going to go away, because a lot of big companies believe their businesses are being harmed. So the long-term view is that the SOPA fight is just one piece of a long negotiation.

Actually, if you read the article and linked letter, you will see that this list does not seem to come from any explicit support of SOPA. Instead, anyone on this list and not on the official judiciary list linked above comes from a letter[1] not stating support for SOPA but rather petitioning Congress to "enact carefully balanced rogue sites legislation this year."From the linked article: 
"This list is derived from two sources: the official list (pdf) of SOPA supporters from the Judiciary Committee’s website, and a letter (pdf) addressed to Congress from the Global Intellectual Property Center, which is an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce."I thought this deserved clarification.[1] <a href="http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/pressreleases/letter-359.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/default/files/pressre...</a>

GoDaddy's official Twitter account is currently robo-replying with "We encourage you to visit our blog to view the details of our position on SOPA: <a href="http://x.co/c0q4" rel="nofollow">http://x.co/c0q4</a>, so I doubt they were "tricked".

SOPA is also against counterfeit products and drugs. But if they really care about that, they should separate it from copyright infringement.They probably lumped them together just so they can show off with a long list of companies supporting it from different markets.

They're not a regular technology company.  They're owned by KKR.

I glanced at that list quickly even before I was aware of the boycott. Many of those names are just random non-tech related companies, but I couldn't help but think that GoDaddy sticks out like a sore thumb on it. Almost as if they were tricked into joining.

PG, if you're reading this, I don't know which list you saw, but here's one with SOPA supporters that is probably the most comprehensive:<a href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-sopa-opponents-should-worry-about/" rel="nofollow">http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/the-439-organizations-s...</a>

Yes.This is not censoring, this is capitalism in action.

Censorship involves speech or other forms of communication. Withholding an invite or discouraging of certain investors in not censorship.

Curious: Aren't ISPs and payment processing companies also private organizations? Are DNS "name servers"?I don't disagree with PG's stance here and I don't think it is censorship, but you must admit that these are "just business decisions" for these parties as well (possibly even Congress)

YC demo day is a private event hosted by a private organization. As such, YC has the right to determine the kind of entities that are allowed to be present at the event.And YC / pg have determined that the kind of companies that would support SOPA are unlikely to make good investors in YC portfolio companies. No censorship, just a business decision.

I disagree with that since the reasons are not purely political. PG believes that supporting SOPA shows a very flawed understanding of how the Internet works. Since many YC companies are web-based or rely on the Internet in other ways I think this makes sense. You can't knowledgeably invest in something with a very flawed understanding of it.

Censorship is using legal force, physically if necessary to shut you up. It isn't simply refusing to provide you a platform.

No, I think the appropriate word would be "advocacy."

Am I the only one thinking that this is censorship too?edit: censorship

Is there a peerblock list for SOPA supporting companies?

We need try and start to route around companies that are damaging the internet; and start figuring out who their collaborators are and route around them.  This is a great first start, but we need to get companies like google to refuse to allow the MPAA &#38; RIAA to use any of their value add  products (gmail/calendar/etc).

may be we should stop watching the movies of the supporting studios (and giving them money directly or indirectly) - much harder to do, but would be quite effective

I was going to say the same thing.Thank you PG for doing your part. Thank you so much.

PG, thank you - this is one of the best stances against SOPA yet.Frankly, this is a badass stance.And this line, as also mentioned by others, is fantastic:"If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?"

Smart move. This is a clear way to send a signal to SOPA supporting companies: supporting this bill may cut you out of some of the best investment opportunities in the world.

So, who is the congressional staffer who can't spell rogue?<a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Su...</a>

I sincerely hope that many Internet companies such as Facebook and Google will follow this initiative by removing all these companies from their databases.

In case someone takes the list down,<a href="http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/blog_en/companies-that-support-sopa" rel="nofollow">http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/blog_en/companies-that-suppo...</a>Enjoy.

Occupy congress, "We demand INTERNET FREEDOM to replace SOPA [and other antiINTERNET FREEDOM bills?]".SOPA could be renamed to SOCPA (Stop Online Child Pornography Act), then you will have a lot of hostile people towards the current and future INTERNET FREEDOM movements.

I think occupying Sutro Tower would be pretty cool.

Indeed we all should OCCUPY the capitol or the judiciary committee; inside the committee and outside.Though will 1,000s of citizens trying to save the Internet from the media be covered by the media?

Expressions of incoherent rage have fuelled the majority of social change in history.

&#62; [OWS is] literally an expression of incoherent rage.You're clueless, likely intentionally so.Many Occupy members are very coherent. If you haven't looked far enough to find one you must be getting your news from a TV.And rage doesn't motivate Food not Bombs, or most other OWS participants and participating organizations.But Occupy, like Anonymous, is a non-trademarked non-organization. Anyone can go, for any reason, and can say whatever they want under its auspices. You could cherry-pick anything you want.The incoherent rage though is mostly to be found among the members of the armed forces who joined post 9-11 to go and kill well over a million people in the Afghan/Iraq/Pakistan-USA war (to date) to get revenge for something they didn't even attempt to understand. Yelling at our politicians and refusing to pay taxes is the sane response.Not from anarchists, but from patriots who'll only support a government of the people, for the people.

The "Occupy" movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage. I think a traditional, well-organized, on-message movement against SOPA would do a lot better than throwing in with OWS.

Maybe all us angry nerds should OCCUPY something.  Something big, related to SOPA.  It would be cool to see EFF type concerns channeled into that movement.

1) Adjust the movement to be about INTERNET FREEDOM, not SOPA. This is because the bill can be delayed/stopped til there's an anti-child porn bill with similar wording.eg "Demand INTERNET FREEDOM bills to replace the ANTI-INTERNET bills [of SOPA, PROTECT-IP, DMCA, etc]"2) Having INTERNET FREEDOM bills would make it impossible for laws like SOPA to pass. As a bonus, compromises can be made while having some INTERNET FREEDOM. Whereas with SOPA, they're watering down some parts that still lead to ANTI-INTERNET. Which further encourages ANTI-INTERNET supporters to make huge demands. It's a technique: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique</a>3) Find Congress people that love Internet. I hope there's a few! Ask if they can be the mascots, the INTERNET messiah, etc.4) Copy and paste SOPA to start with. Replace the words to protect INTERNET instead. This is a delicious backfire of using someone's work and their own weapons against them.5) Add a way for people to be excepted from the movement to the services. Also allow a way for people to understand why the companies are no longer appearing politically neutral (because the anti-INTERNET bills are going to kill them).6) Add some masking of dropped services with JS hover and non-JS side-by-side of anti-FREEDOM warning 'of increased costs to comply with the legal demands of other companies'.7) Of course, provide a simple link to the INTERNET FREEDOM movement that has to have two different sections;a) Simple. A video, simple acts to perform to demand and spread the information. This is an attempt to educate people with simplicity. A link is provided to advanced for more complex information.b) Advanced. 'Nerds', that understand the terminology, and what it's about. How to demand and spread information. Also how to explain with simple education if some people don't understand.I tried to suggest some of this to Reddit's ideas for admins but got ghostbanned and censured because apparently it's 'politics' despite Reddit's recent anti-SOPA support.

Gauntlet officially thrown down. I respect PG even more for taking a stand on this. Now we need to figure out the best way to get people opposed to SOPA on a grand scale.  No disrespect to the HN community, but I wonder how much of an impact we really have had thus far.  Tumblr, Reddit, and Mozilla have done a fairly good job of this, but they are not large enough to do it on their own.  Next we need Google and Facebook to get more involved as I think that would make awareness of this issue skyrocket.  Any thoughts on pragmatic approaches to getting the public more involved?

pg, thank you so much for doing this. You rock.

Amazingly, nine out of the top ten articles on the front page are SOPA related (if you count Louis CK's personal distribution, which seems to me to be an experiment in fighting the xIAA organizations.)

A bomb was just dropped! This is a badass stand that sends a strong and direct message to anyone tied to a SOPA supporter. It will be interesting to see if venture funds start to cut ties w/ SOPA supporters.

Probably not but I personally have no problem with this.pg runs an investment firm that invests to a large extent in internet-based companies. To "blacklist" the companies that want to hurt his investment opportunities and returns (really, just no longer help profit from his work) seems like a no-brainer. It gets you positive press from the group you want to attract and hopefully denies some revenue from the ones that would use that revenue against you in the future.

The examples you gave are all of events which are defined by some belief or cause, whose opponents would simply be out of place if present. That's very different from what's going on here, where the bearers of a particular opinion are being excluded from a business relationship as a punishment for expressing an opinion which is only circuitously related to that business relationship.

Just a slight quibble: hunters are actually among the most consistent supporters of wildlife conservation. Ducks Unlimited, for instance, is largely an organization of duck hunters.

If you think about it, hunters are rarely invited to wildlife fundraisers, fur clothing manufacturers to PETA meetings, and creationists to NAS meetings -- all because of opinions expressed by each party. Dissent is part of a modern life, and not inviting people to private events is a perfectly legitimate way of voicing that dissent.

Who is blacklisting individuals? It's blacklisting the corporate entity.

Nope, that's what you are supposed to do in a market system.  You as a citizen are under no obligation to engage in business with corporations you feel are harming society/

The Democracy-destroying government-subsidized corporations are already playing hardball with you.Why do you refuse to play hardball back?Try getting hired to be a VP at Pfizer while publicly supporting patent-reform.Try spreading the gospel of universal healthcare while being employed by Blue Cross.Try getting corporate advertisers for your online newspaper that presents a favorable view of WikiLeaks, or is willing to stand up for corporate whistleblowers who expose fraud.Individuals are already excluded from many, many activities based on their opinions. Non-violent non-cooperation with Democracy-destroying organizations is absolutely fundamental if you want to defend freedom in your country.

Do you mean "vehemently", or is your anti-SOPA position actually contagious?

I'm virulently anti-SOPA myself, have signed all the petitions, etc. But am I the only one made uncomfortable by a blacklist of people who have expressed certain opinions?

PG, a request; demand INTERNET FREEDOM bills support from SOPA turncoats?Otherwise, we'll go through this shit again [0][1][2][3] until compromises are made. Which I'm sure is from quite an effective tactic [4]. At the moment, it seems to be a lot of 'pacifist' movements to STOP SOPA when they can go to war against the anti-INTERNET FREEDOM supporters by demanding INTERNET FREEDOM bills.After all, if they change the bill to be about stopping rogue sites selling child pornography with same wording except replacing piracy words; are you going to publicly say STOP CHILD PORN act supporting companies are no longer allowed at YC Demo Day?[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_S.978" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_S.978</a>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_...</a>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agre...</a>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...</a>[4] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique</a>

Not sure why you are getting downvoted. Let's call things and people the right names."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Boom, headshot.Mmmmmaybe these companies are all so clueless that they think it's a good idea. Far more likely, they know what they're doing is bad, but choose to do it anyway because there's no downside for them.It's like people who are deliberate assholes in public because they (correctly) gamble that no one will risk punching them in the face.Well I for one fully support punching SOPA supporters in the face. This is as good a start as any.

All though I sympathize with your argument, it seems to be based on "reasoning". Reasoning is the one thing this government/industry ins't interested in.

Firms do not usually take stances on legislative matters their own.  SOPA's passage significantly benefits firms' activity levels and in turn the revenue produced in the furtherance of protecting their clients' rights.  While outward facing corporate positions may take a neutral or negative stance on SOPA, many overt and implicit stances are taken by their respective counsel.  SOPA claims made via premptive cease and desist letters or active litigation may or may not claim SOPA in their position statements to prevent drawing clear relationships between their clients and SOPA.  Most agreements come with gag clauses to further protect and guarantee the cat doesn't get out of the bag.  Unfortunately, firms are notoriously good for keeping secrets, so I am not expecting Wikipedia like bombshells connecting brand X to SOPA support.

Before we go off half-cocked here, let's take a minute and ask ourselves how good a plan that relies on lawyer's being embarassed to have to argue both sides of an issue can be?

When law firms have trouble, the common man can expect Kafka experienceImagine your company name appears there days before some meeting with pg

Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list.Riiiight.

Update: ALL the law firms have been removed from the list.<a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of%20SOPA%20Supporters.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rogue%20Websites/List%20of...</a>

More info:
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-firms-removing-their-name-sopa-supporters-list-sopa-support-crumbling.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-fi...</a>

I was extremely alarmed to see our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on that list and immediately emailed my attorney (a partner) about it.Turns out two of their attorneys agreed to lend their names AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and made it clear their support was in no way representative of the views of the firm. Despite that, DWT got added to the list.Incredibly dirty move on the part of Rep. Smith.DWT has tweeted about it (<a href="http://twitter.com/#!/DWTLaw/status/150019649130606592" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/#!/DWTLaw/status/150019649130606592</a>) and tell me they are working to get their name removed from the list.Edit: fix link

The House Judiciary supporters list is chock-full of lawyers -- one-seventh of the list has the string 'LLP' -- and therein lies a major target of opportunity for the technology industry. I doubt anyone will change their counsel over this, but they can make them explain their position.Let every tech industry CEO, CFO and board member call their most senior contact at a supporting firm. Ask them to explain their position, ask them to explain how this _won't_ break DNS, how the precedents set here won't spread to other policy questions or countries. Don't get into balancing one industry or another -- just make them demonstrate a reasonable layperson understanding of how the internet works. The last thing a partner wants is to sound less than informed on the core technologies in their industry of expertise. If nothing else they'll have to go to school on the question.No doubt many such partners will say they get it but the firm is larger than they are. And that's the point of a law firm, isn't it, you hire one because it provides quick access to expertise on a wide variety of subjects. But if that larger firm doesn't understand the tech business, just how prepared are they to handle technology problems in various corners of the law? Ask the M&#38;A guy, the financing guy, the tax guy, to explain how SOPA won't break DNS.I don't know where tech billings compare with movie and recording industry. But they aren't small: M&#38;A, financings, patent, etc etc ad nauseum. Beyond that, the network and technology are the core of how business and industry are changing. Maybe these firms stand to gain from SOPA over the next five years. But can they, can the individual partners, afford to misunderstand the technologies that will be driving more and more clients over time? Get on the phone, not to argue, but to make them understand that they are showing an ignorance that could leave them behind.

anyone have a list of the companies that were part of SOPA that attended either of the last two demo days?

A sacrifice is worth it assuming it provides some benefit to the cause.  I'm not sure if this action is going to have any effect (hopefully I'm wrong though).

SOPA is going to hurt our industry so much. It's going to be destructive for Silicon Valley.Taking a stand is necessary. YC startups are going to have much a harder time is SOPA passes. Even from just an economic point of view, it's better to take some loses now than taking higher loses in the future.

As much as I support the anti SOPA cause, is this more of a hunger strike than a consequential action?  The startups presenting at demo day need those dollars a whole lot more than the corporate venture arms need the investments.  Money is money, no matter how stupid it may be.

This seems common for anything that is rooted in new media and doesn't look like the traditional newspapers and magazine websites. You still hear the word startup used with Facebook and twitter occasionally even though they at clearly not.

&#62; and many startups, such as RedditCan you call a 6 year old site, sold to a major media conglomerate, with some of the highest traffic on the net a startup?

It's not only about Congressmen and Congresswomen being in the back pockets of big corporations. If you watch the hearings you realize that 90% of them don't understand enough technology to know what DNS is. They are persuaded by the people that are bought, and it goes from there.

This controversy to me seems eerily similar to the so-called "SCO Wars" when the SCO Group defended her intellectual property rights against looters like IBM and Novell. This act will help to prevent tragedies such as what happened to SCO from occuring in the future, by making it more difficult to pirate other people's code. I do not see why some people think that is a bad thing. Darl McBride was right. He might have lost the suit, but I think history will vindicate him, and SOPA is part of that vindication.

200+: content creation, distribution, etc. Approximately 1/4 seems to be small photography studios.100+ commonly pirated physical products - pharma, shoes, fashion, guitars, spirits, golf clubs, etc.50+ general manufac/retail industry concerns.15+ law enforcement/local government trade orgs15+ law officesThere's a number of testing and credentialing organizations, I'd guess they might be part of content but I'm really not sure.

Paul Graham: Thank you for this incredibly forceful and ballsy move. I almost applauded out loud after reading this.

I just saw that the USTA (United States Tennis Association) supports SOPA. What a disappointment. This is the organization that manages the US Open and other pro tennis tournaments, but it's also the group that manages amateur leagues and tournaments.I've been thinking about just playing ultimatetennis instead, maybe this is the time.

GODADDY is acting like we're bluffing and basically challenging us to try and make a dent in their business. Read this!Update (6:18 PM): GoDaddy seems unimpressed by the boycott so far. They made the following statement to Ars Technica: "Go Daddy has received some emails that appear to stem from the boycott prompt, but we have not seen any impact to our business. We understand there are many differing opinions on the SOPA regulations."

Just found discount list on Reddit: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supports_sopa_im_transferring_51_domains/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supp...</a>

My company has about 35 domains and SSL certs through GoDaddy. I've always loathed them but I can't justify the cost of transferring over. Is anyone offering a discounted option to jump ship?

That's a good question, and tough one to figure out. This applies to anyone who wants to deprive these companies of their support.From my perspective, these attempts will not stop, and will take on new forms of bills. We have had to deal with bad bills since during the Clinton administration/Republican-controlled congress.Some people call for 'Internet freedom' laws, but what is stopping the next congressional class from weakening or negating these laws without amending the Constitution?My own view is that it will take a long time for these attempts to cease. Worst case, efforts will peter out until the generation who did not grow up with the Internet are no longer with us.

So if SOPA fails to pass and stops being an issue, will that boycott end or will it continue?Going by PG's reasoning (If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good investors?") then it should continue until there are major changes the leaderships of those companies. Right?

PG: How did you arrive at this action when concerning Monsanto I understood your comments as something along the lines of "that's just the way of things work in the world of corporations"?

Excellent! Props to PG for standing up against SOPA. Media company wants to take the free internet away from us. We cannot afford to have SOPA passed!!

Yes, I read that too, and that's my point: he doesn't make the invitations himself; just because you trust an organisation to do something doesn't mean you can dispense yourself from verifying they did what they were asked to do.The "people in charge of the Demo Day invites" probably have enormous incentives to invite influential and powerful employees from SOPA-supporting companies, and would certainly face backslash they'd rather do without.So what I think is happening is that PG just added "manage invitations to Demo Day" to his todo list... (all the most admirable BTW)

From the article:Graham told me in a followup email that he was indeed serious and had just given the list of SOPA supporters to the people in charge of the Demo Day invitesIt's not PG who needs to know, it's the people he's put in charge of Demo Day.

PG is quoted in the article as saying ”I don’t know exactly which companies had people on the list. But I know which will now: none of them.”That's fine and admirable, but on the practical side, if he doesn't know who's who, how is he going to enforce this rule?

This is great news, but I still feel that more leading industry figures need to step forward the same way PG has and make clear their stance on SOPA.Hopefully PGs move will encourage others to follow suit.

GoDaddy no longer supports SOPA:<a href="http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&#38;isc=smtwsup" rel="nofollow">http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_ite...</a>

Found this link from a comment thread on TechCrunch: commenter (Nick Such) said, jhalf of the YC companies may be affected: <a href="http://jpf.github.com/domain-profiler/ycombinator.html" rel="nofollow">http://jpf.github.com/domain-profiler/ycombinator.html</a>.
But this graph is (I think) earlier on Dec 22nd. Will be interesting to see how the graph looks like after that day's mayhem!

Looks like the link to the Sopa Supporters.pdf file was taken down, so here's a backup, courtesy of google docs:<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=1-fTQaHJmvOAe78mGBBRSeFdRLoR9mgJYaIIPd3Cowy_P0ReiJF-lt9rv7FG7" rel="nofollow">https://docs.google.com/open?id=1-fTQaHJmvOAe78mGBBRSeFdRLoR...</a>

Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day