If ESPN hires a law firm to write this bad law which will likely hurt your business in the future, doesn't it make sense to advise your clients to not hire that same law firm? As someone who has worked with both, it's clear that the Entrenched Big Law model & the Disruptive Startup Model are obviously incompatible and the more we can do to move away from these conflicted monoliths the better we can actually affect real reform.
This will require some work and likely even severing an old business relationship or two, but these small changes from someone like you and a peer or 2 can have immeasurable effect. 1 Paul Graham taking business away from 1 Big Law Firm will do more than thousands of us can.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-fi...
Or that lawyers at law firms don't just willy-nilly write or sign these letters for free, they do it on behalf of their SOPA-supporting clients while receiving a paycheck from the law firm who their SOPA-supporting-client has hired.
Again, that's why I made the point about sharing law firms. All it's saying is "I'm not doing business with these lawyers who I think are being paid by clients to help them censor the internet."
And though the law firm isn't saying "our entire law firm supports this law," they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and she did find constitutional problems with it even though that is not the position of the entire firm." As I explained below I can understand why the latter isn't so troubling to some but I think the incentives these firms face are the same once they are in the business of protecting ESPN's interests.
And it will not change the fact that startups not working with ESPNs law firm will 1 - Give business to lawyers who do believe censoring the internet is unconstitutional & 2 - Remove an obvious and blatant conflict of interest.
I'm just saying, do we really want our startups to be working with the same network of big law firms that helped Disney extend copyright law duration to infinity 100 years ago? These big law firms obviously have their interests in protecting old streams of business -- I would too.
The techdirt article points this out too. When there's a law up for debate which a client wants to get through they try to get these letters in to make it more likely the law will pass. And yes this is different from official "support" which is saying "we the law firm want this law to pass." This is more like "our lawyer looked at this for our client and he does not think it's unconstitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." To me, that's still bad but I completely understand if others are okay with it. Reasonable men can and do disagree about a lot of things.
Is it really wise to get in bed with ESPN in the first place? that's all I'm saying. I am not and will not be the first to argue that sharing lawyers with those on opposite sides of important legislation with you is a bad idea.
The law firms care about what their clients care about. If a startup is paying them, they care about the startup's concerns.
The problem lies with the legislators, lobbyists and big media companies --not with lawyers.
It's like arguing you wouldn't want to do business with a lawyer who works with murderers and such! Well, the whole point of the law system is that EVERYONE gets their defense.
They are not saying "we the firm support SOPA" but they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and he finds it constitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." I can understand if you're not disturbed by the latter but I think a simple incentive analysis should make it clear why I'm not the first to argue against sharing law firms with those on the opposite sides of controversial issues facing the court.
A simple hypothetical should explain it: ESPN wants SOPA, they get their lawyer to sign a letter which says the law looks fine. Let's say the law threatens the startup's business at the same time, maybe the law firm isn't as likely to write or sign a letter arguing against the law if it means it upsets ESPN. End result, more lawyers at these firms sign on to SOPA and you end up with what appears like considerably more support for that side from the legal community simply b/c bigger clients support the law than those that oppose it.
Really -- my point is simply that you don't need to hire a 5000 lawyer firm who also represents ESPN & the NFL when a 20 lawyer firm will do. I believe that is in line with the startup ethic as well.
And again that's not my point at all to not work with lawyers who work with murderers -- your statement of my position is a straw man at best and a dishonest mischaracterization at worst. I'm not saying ESPN did anything wrong here -- I'm saying ESPN disagrees with your startup's positions and it is paying that law firm to do what it can to win and hold their position. Maybe it's not a good idea to hire the firm if you don't like the law, you know?
That would be a case of mis-representation of your interests, and the lawyer/firm could face serious legal consequences.
"""I do not think that is as unreasonable as your hysterical response makes it out to be."""
You keep using that word, "hysterical". I don't think it means what you think it means.
"""They are not saying "we the firm support SOPA" but they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and he finds it constitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." I can understand if you're not disturbed by the latter but I think a simple incentive analysis should make it clear why I'm not the first to argue against sharing law firms with those on the opposite sides of controversial issues facing the court. A simple hypothetical should explain it: ESPN wants SOPA, they get their lawyer to sign a letter which says the law looks fine. Let's say the law threatens the startup's business at the same time, maybe the law firm isn't as likely to write or sign a letter arguing against the law if it means it upsets ESPN. End result, more lawyers at these firms sign on to SOPA and you end up with what appears like considerably more support for that side from the legal community simply b/c bigger clients support the law than those that oppose it."""
Hmm. Not really familiar with how the legal system works, are we?
Contrast that with GoDaddy, where outsiders can tell how many domains moved, how much of an exodus is average, who made good on their promise to move.
And I don't know if you've transfered domains before but I didn't have a good time doing it. Though it was not difficult I think we've seen some tremendous overstatements in this thread as to how easy it actually works out in practice.
And for me at least it's not that it not difficult to not watch ESPN. People don't live in a world without choices -- usually when they buy Battlefield they are also considering MW3 or the Batman game. There are some die-hard fans but also a lot of us that like football but are perfectly happy watching an episode or two of Breaking Bad instead if that's on. The NFL needs casual fans too, and those are the ones we should think about when we think about boycotts. Of course it will seem hopeless if you think about the guy with his face painted blue but I'm asking you to think of the guy flipping channels at home.
You only need to sway opinion a tiny little bit to change things considerably -- this is why boycotts work so damn well. The hardest thing to get over the common cynical attitude that "people won't do it, therefore we should not try."
(you should check out some Gandhi -- he explains far better than I ever can why boycotts aren't just effective but arguably the most effective tool that ordinary citizens have, and also almost always much easier to execute than we think they are)
I have transferred domains before. It was trivial. You must not know many sports fans.
My argument was not that people should not boycott Go Daddy, only that people did it because it was not inconvenient.
So I'll give you that the freaks won't switch but I don't think you'll give me that the casual fans will if they associate the NFL or ESPN with these bad things.
Out of curiosity, would you be able to give up ESPN or the NFL or even one of those things? I'm not saying give up everything, but can't you see that if everyone who was upset even chose one company to boycott that it would do something?