I didn't really read much about it, but I am incluned to agree with Flip; there's good and possibly bad possibilities. I don't think this is something as big and bad as people make it out to be. From Wikipedia:
The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from conducting business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would criminalize unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also grants immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.[4]
More or less, it looks more like it benefits companies (Netflix, iTunes) who own rights, but punishes sites who illegally exploit the original work of others for Adsense and other ad profits (seems like a good idea to me).
How does this apply to sites which allow users to post material for rev share (like YouTube) - where the sites do make an effort to squash piracy? I don't think sites that put an effort forward like YouTube should see punishment - although perhaps greater punishment for users who violate laws.
What about non-profit sites like Wikipedia or web forums who often quote material for sources? Can they apply for some sort of immunity? I think we can all agree that it would be a very bad thing if non-profit information/education sites like Wikipedia were censored.
Now i think the major online piracy problem doesn't lie within websites. Is there any way to effectively squash torrenting of pirated material? Will ISPs be able to suspend user accounts if they stream or torrent copyrighted material? Much piracy comes from non-website sources, and I think this is the area that really should be tackled far more strictly. If the bill doesn't account for that, then it is fairly worthless.
To conclude: I am, very strongly against the illegal distribution of commercial property (particularly entertainment goods like music, movies, tv shows, fictional books, etc...) copyrighted by anyone; if they were created with the intention to be sold, then it makes no sense why anyone should be allowed to take them for free; in the non-virtual world we very clearly identify that as
theft.
I am very strongly in favour of allowing the freedom of informative and educational material - I also feel that education is not free enough. I feel that sites like Wikipedia are beginning to give access to these materials on a level that the public really deserves - and in extension, commercial sources like Youtube and iTunes are offering a great deal of free education in the form of recorded lectures. I would think that only bad could happen if this process were crippled, and would be very socially counter-productive. Can this bill cripple this second point? How so?
