I'm an EFF member and strongly support the overall cause, but also strongly disagree with many of its initiatives and positions. I imagine the situation is similar with regards to the BSA and its members, as it is with any group.
If the EFF announced support for a bill that would negatively change the entire landscape of the internet as we know it, would you still be a member of the EFF? Would you continue paying dues and remain silent on the issue?
Sure, but the point is that being a member of the BSA doesn't imply support of SOPA. Maybe it did yesterday, but it especially didn't a few weeks ago, before this whole thing received so much attention.
The simplest explanation is that the members who were indifferent before, have changed their position in light of the recent "noise". But you can't work backwards and say that those members were originally in support of the bill.
I disagree. I think the point is that being a member of the BSA does imply support of SOPA. Which is the very reason its members were forced to make the BSA change its position.
It was a grassroots campaign of unaligned users of the internet. People from vastly different professions and backgrounds enacting change through varying means; twitter, direct mail, facebook, google+, blogs, articles, comments etc.
There is no system. That's what makes the internet awesome.
'Holleyman's stance marks a reversal for BSA, which originally supported the bill. In a press statement last month, Holleyman said the bill was "a good step" to "address the problem of online piracy."'
