I never read that they can shut down any site without proof/evidence. If that is the case it changes my opinion.
Regardless of their intentions when trying to protect intellectual property, i am for it bc its their right to do so as the owners.
It is not easy to shut down websites outside of the USA, so they want to be able to block usa residents from nonusa based sites that allow illegal activity. That is the basis of their argument, and as far as I understand it has validity.
Base on section 102, these bills empower Attorney General to act on suspicious FOREIGN sites, if he (and he, alone, is enough) to determine the infringing statue of a site. If he cannot find anyone related to the site under US jurisdiction, he can get a court order of notice automatically to search engines(and ad providers)to the site, such as Google, Yahoo ... to shut down links to it within 5 days.
IN EFFECT: AG alone can shut down ALL foreign sites with the slightest infringement of the POSSIBILITIES of infringing intellectual property. AG can shut down Wiki because some one posted enough pictures Black Eyed Peas. Stretch it a bit, he can shut ALL sites that have enough pictures of Black Eye Peas while also opposing his boss' view.
So you may ask how can AG claimed the "possibilities of infringing intellectual property" for only couple pictures of Black Eyed Peas over a super useful of knowledge base engine Google?
In section 103, he can claim
An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property? if [a portion of the site is US-directed] and is used by users within the United States and is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables or facilitates [copyright violation or circumvention of copyright protection measures].
Google fits ALL that.
That is even a discussion forum can be claimed to provide mechanism for copyright infringement as simple as a comment box.
And in section 103(b), it also defines that the site owner, ?take deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of?the site to carry out acts [of copyright infringement or circumvention].? That's if Josh and other mods decided that it's too costly to read every post we wrote, and skipped Wingo's cover singing of "Happy Birthday to You. AG and or owner of the song "Happy Birthday to You", can shut down Manhattan Reef because MR provides a comment box where the birthday girl showed the song thru the YouTube link of me singing for her that day.
To summarize, the danger is, this bill empower the AG, legislation or the supposedly copyright holder a blanket ability to shut down any internet site, windows to it, links to it and such as long as he does not like it. Of course, his/her likings can be swayed by lobbyists, his/her boss and or the mate the AG just slept with.
We now know some of the danger of this bill, let's look at the funny part, section 201(b) of these bills also expand the civil case into criminal case by defining a value of infringement "$2500 in 180 days". For example, my singing of the "Happy Birthday to You" was viewed by MR members(to see how awful I sing) and friends of the girl(to see how adorable she is) over YouTube for 1500 times. And if it happened that iTune is selling that song at $1 sung by the original artist, say, dead couple years ago. By definition of these bills, I will be a felon suspect and it's now the job of US government to go after me NOT the copyright holder nor the company who actually selling the songs. So the ignorant Wingo's unintentional infringement, caused me a felon status and possible of 3 years of prison, US government money to pursue me, shut down of MR and YouTube, Josh's possible of 3 yrs of jail for allowing the birthday girl to post, and no one can explain to you how dangerous and ridiculous these bills are, and fined me $2500 penalty to the company selling the Happy Birth Day song and of which about only ~$100 goes to the copyright owner. So $2400 to the company lobbying for this law, $100 to the copyright holder
in the expense of YOUR TAX dollar! That is, the lobbyists are telling the legislators to use the public money and shuffle them into their boss's pocket and to justify that the public should pay for this, they give you a moral stand of this infringement is criminally inclined.
There are many more problems in the bill but in general after reading just couple articles of the bills, you can tell the bills are bogus attempts by the recording industry, "Hollywood" and the pharmaceuticals giants with an extra side effect of politicians misusing the new power.
