I read all of the Stop Online Pirating Act (SOPA) bill. The wording is redundant in many places and I believe that it is intentionally misleading.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
Simply put:
If a website/server has copyrighted anything on it and the copyright owner(s) complain then the Attorney General has authority to force restrictions on the site.
If the site is within the US, they can just shut it down.
If the site is foreign then; ISPs have to block the domain names, search engines (google, yahoo, ect) have to remove it from search results, payment providers (paypal, visa, mastercard, ect) have to stop all transactions to and from the site, and advertisers have to stop advertising on the site and/or advertising for the site.
These restrictions have to be implemented within 5 days of receipt of notice.
Once the site has been notified of restriction, they can then appeal their case. This is a no warnings system. They screw up once and they are off the internet until they fix it or convince them that no wrong doing was done.
Example of domestic site:
Sony Music Entertainment says that Youtube has videos of songs from Sony Music Entertainment and if the Attorney General authorizes it, Youtube will receive notice. They will then have 5 days to remove ALL the content and prove as such. During these 5 days, some advertisers and payment services may have already began severing ties. Since Youtube is owned by Google, a domestic company, the domain and search engine restrictions would not have gone into effect since Google would have gotten a cease and desist letter demanding that Youtube be fixed or removed.
This is a simple scenario, but is likely to happen. The sites in question would have to much to loose and they would just fix the "issue". Thus censoring the internet.
Example of foreign site:
guardian.co.uk is a European site that hosts news videos. They also have music videos posted on their site and a couple are from Edwyn Collins. Edwyn Collins is a European recording artist, but some of his music is part of Epic Records, a company that is part of Sony Music Entertainment. Sony Music Entertainment files a complaint and the US Attorney General agrees. The owner of guardian.co.uk is sent a notice and the restrictions must take place within 5 days. Before guardian.co.uk would even have a chance to correct this, US ISPs will have blocked the domain from resolving to the IP address (77.91.249.30), US based companies will have stopped advertising on the site, and Google will have stopped people in the US from seeing it as a result on a search. This will not hurt guardian.co.uk enough to bring it down, as most of its traffic is from Europe. The only thing it will accomplish is keeping people from the US from seeing the site. Chances are, the owner of guardian.co.uk will be upset by this and will not even attempt to appeal the case. Even if an appeal is made, it may take months to reverse the restrictions and that is even after the US Attorney General decided that they could.
This scenario is complex, but is very likely to happen that way. This site wouldn't loose much, so they will likely continue doing what they are. They may attempt an appeal and may get it. Until then, the site will be censored from the US.
Another example of a foreign site:
This site is blatantly offering torrent downloads of copyrighted material. thepiratebay.org, housed in Stockholm, Sweden. Multiple US copyright owners can file suit and restrictions would be placed. The site domain would be blocked and Google searches would come up blank. The IP address of the server (194.71.107.15) would still remain accessible. The torrents on the site are not files stored on the site, so the torrents would still be shared and reshared. Thepiratebay would still be online and people would still be pirating using the torrents and trackers hosted on the site. The owners of thepiratebay wouldn't care and wouldn't file an appeal or attempt to correct their site.
This scenario is relatively simple and will be one of the many that happen exactly like it. These types of sites don't care one bit. The restrictions placed won't even stop people from within the US. The site is only accessed as a database for files stored on other people's computers. These sites will not make appeals and will not even be effected by it.
So in conclusion SOPA is another lame attempt by corporations to line their wallets more, by making it harder to get their stuff free. The only companies this will hurt is US based web companies that rely on user generated content. Youtube, Facebook, Google, and even smaller sites like Deviantart will be censored and thus loose traffic. So Sony, Warner Bros, Disney, and other Hollywood based companies will get a small amount of extra money from those few who don't want to have to go around these restrictions and the internet will die out.
Contact your congressmen and express your hatred of this act and express why they should vote against it and other bills like it.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/representatives/
Information from this blog will be attached in an email to all my local congressmen, including Republican Representative Lee Terry. Terry is a co-sponsor of this bill, I hope this changes.
Do something, or loose the internet as we know it.
