Glad to see more high-profile open letters, but I'd really rather see all of these come with ultimatums. Nowhere in the letter does Fowler say that he feels strongly enough about this not to publish with Pearson in the future.
Companies are supporting the legislation in hopes of helping their bottom line. Letter's like this ought to threaten that bottom line.
Do you make ultimatums when you talk to your friends? If so, do you have any friends?
Actually, ultimatums are a great way to get people to flip the bozo bit and stop listening to you. By attempting to use force, you imply that the listener won't listen to reason, without having even tried.
Colluding friends and businesses that you make money from and for is a dangerous mistake. Also, yes.. when I'm serious about something I make ultimatums. "Dude, if you're gonna keep smoking meth then I frankly can't hang out with you anymore."
Incidentally, I've got lots of friends and none of them do meth (at least, in front of me).
Enough with friends, back to businesses. Businesses that flip the bozo bit when getting ultimatums about their income won't last long. GoDaddy is probably the most arrogantly run business I can think of at the moment, and putting money where mouths are even gave them pause.
They are different situations. Here we're talking about an author who presumably has had a good relationship with a publisher for years, versus a situation like GoDaddy where customer relationships are almost entirely impersonal (and automated).
Despite the metaphors we use sometimes, businesses are not entirely machines. Writing a letter in the first place implies you're attempting to reach a human being who can do something about it. With GoDaddy, writing letters barely even makes sense. They presumably changed because people actually started moving their domains, not because they wrote letters threatening to do so.
I didn't see an ultimatum in the letter. It expresses that he doesn't support it and doesn't like to be associated with a supporter, but doesn't pose any "or else" clause.
Companies are supporting the legislation in hopes of helping their bottom line.
Although, I do not see any harm behind the idea of improving your balance sheet. However I feel very strongly that SOPA will do more harm than good. My main concern is - SOPA has potential to change the fundamental way we interact with the Internet. Many have pointed out that, the change will put constrain on how we build and use the internet. This might have a negative impact. If it happens it will impact the companies also. The long tail will be threatened if not vanished and that will impact the bottom line one day.
These are very thoughtful and concise arguments about why this legislation is flawed. I'm hoping to hear similar arguments made by Alexis Ohanian and Dan Kaminsky while addressing Congress on January 18th.
Companies are supporting the legislation in hopes of helping their bottom line. Letter's like this ought to threaten that bottom line.