Organizations such as the BSA, are business driven, and thus their policy follows where their money comes from. In this case, the BSA's source of money comes form it's members (Apple, Microsoft.. ect) So it's very likely that some, or all, members were behind this bill. Keep in mind that withdrawing support very well may be a political ploy, SOPA got TONS of negative press, so affiliations such as the BSA may have backed off simply in order to get the public off their back, re-group, and attempt to get a similar, yet less widely criticized bill through. Also, all these companies affiliated with the BSA have long histories of fighting piracy, as they license expensive software, so don't for a second think they are completely on the publics side here.

I don't think we need to dig into specific technicalities of this, especially with our limited knowledge of the hidden, behind-the-curtain power structures. This law was specifically designed to create an internet weapon of suppression of the unwanted. Apple could have use this to suppress jail breaking. Microsoft could use this to suppress Linux. Lobbyists could use this to suppress the Occupy movement. The powers that be as such could use this to destroy the power internet gives to people, first time in history. However for some reason, they have miscalculated - they did not expect this kind of organization, backlash and opposition. Now they are just trying to distance themselves to save what's left of their images.

The reason why they miscalculated is a mystery to me, perhaps they have realized they have let this "internet" thing go way too far, they cannot control it anymore using controlled disinformation techniques, and this was one of their last attempts to stop this trend.

Yes, it's really that bad out there. But it's getting better.

Personally, I agree with all of the points you made here, except for the suggestion that we don't need to dig further. The SOPA bill (still) has a lot of potential to enable Internet censorship, and for something that far-reaching I think it's fairly important to be transparent about the various lobbying groups and their aims.

That sounds pretty plausible to me. Remember that the BSA is an organisation that is in constant danger of looking like a cartel. To avoid giving this impression too strongly, it's quite likely they have a fair degree of autonomy over copyright enforcement policy. After all, the whole reason the BSA exists is to keep its harassment of small businesses at arm's length from its members.

That being the case, it's not entirely surprising that the BSA would support anything that appears to make copyright enforcement easier for them. Nor is it particularly surprising that some of its members would find SOPA in conflict with their other interests and request that the BSA adopt a more nuanced position.

I guess that's just not as much fun as some of the other conspiracy theories I see in this thread.

Don't think for a minute that BSA members aren't acutely aware of what it does in their name. There was a lot of time during which MS, Apple and others could have come forward with a counter position on this.

BSA lobbies on behalf of member companies. The member companies know exactly what they are paying for. None of them are in the habit of throwing money away.

Let's distinguish two possible theories:

1) The underlying companies of the BSA (incl. AAPL and MSFT) were not really in favor of SOPA to begin with, and the public attention has lead them to correct the initial BSA position.

2) The underlying companies of the BSA were in favor of SOPA, which is why BSA supported SOPA. But in the face of public backlash they are backpedaling, because it is not valuable to support a bill that will lose regardless.

The second seems much more likely.

These companies wouldn't pay dues unless they were getting value from it. And I bet most have got an employee whose job it is to follow what these organizations are doing to make sure they're still worth the huge dues.

So no. I imagine almost everything done by a group like this is with the explicit approval, if not at the request, of almost all their members. But by not having to put their name on it they get an out in case it blows up in their face.