they prevent commerces to work properly by internet it's like spying and for right of author
they will applicating it on any US websites (including FA) if to much illegacy in they will block everything and as FA got alot of illegal stuffs or from illegal stuffs
we will be shot down

The main problem, from what I've read and understood, is that SOPA is so broadly worded that it covers more than what it says. For example, if I was to design a fan site for a video game, or blog about a video game, my site/blog could be taken down if the company that made the game claims "copyright violation". This also would apply to the "Let's Play" videos of games and possibly even game guides like you find on gamefaqs.com

Also, even if you post something that is your original content, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, could come along, claim that you're violating their copyright and your page/picture/whatever would be taken down without giving you the chance to prove that it's original and by you.

Plus, though many probably haven't thought of this, if things start going that way, then those of us who are web designers will find it harder and harder to find work for companies will start to fear that no matter what, their site will be taken down with no notice.

Ok for right now it reads like that. But just like almost every law ever wrote they will refining making sure it has considerably less loose ends.

I can see all of your points. However I have had to sit in congress before to have laws passed and one thing I can tell you is that they do look at every aspect of the bill. You forget that copyright law will also be taken into consideration when dealing with issues. Just mentioning a title in a blog does not violate copyright law so I think once a lot of the loose ends are tied up blogs that talk about game won't be a problem. I am in total support of SOPA because I believe that website do need to held accountable for what they have. But I will say that yes many things are broadly worded and are very unclear. I've worked in law for eight years to include copyright law and I can tell you that it will be refined to spell our every little detail. The target of the law is basically to prevent illegal downloads of videos game music etc. It's just that the language used is so broad to it makes itself very unclear. I think that everyone needs to sit back and calm down and wait to see the final product before bitching and complaining

There's no "this bill censors free speech" clause. That would be ridiculous. After all, the bill isn't intended to be a censorship bill. It's intended to protect IP holders. Good intentions, road-to-hell, etc.

See, SOPA is worded dangerously enough to allow it to be used for censorship and other nefarious practices. The language of SOPA gives anyone the authority to issue a takedown notice against anyone else WITHOUT burden of proof. SOPA can be used to maliciously shut down sites in the spirit of censorship and anti-competition, with very little risk to any corporate entity guilty of acting maliciously.

The process described by the bill is "Serve Notice -> Punish", not "Serve Notice -> Ensure Validity of Notice -> Punish". The bill is an open door for anyone to say, "That site stole my content. Shut it down NOW."

Sec. 103(b)(4)(A) lists all of the requirements for forming a takedown notice. A plaintiff merely has to submit a statement that (i) bears a signature, (ii) identifies the infringing site, (iii) claims injury, (iv) blames a U.S. company for linking to the infringing site, (v) identifies the owner of the infringing site, (vii) "swears" that the statement itself is not a lie, and (viii) blames someone in the U.S. for being secretly in charge of the infringing site.

One might be quick to point out that (vii) carries the penalty of perjury. The problem is, nowhere in SOPA is there a requirement that the statement must be argued in a court and proven valid before action is taken against a site. The plaintiff just forms a complaint and boom, the "infringing site" is taken down. There's no process by which a court reviews the request, so there's never a point between "request takedown" and "serve takedown" where the issue of perjury can be raised. This is the giant, gaping hole in the bill that opens it up to abuse. Even if the issue of perjury does end up in court, a giant corporation will just set someone up to take the fall. No harm done to whoever was ACTUALLY behind the wrongful takedown notice.

There should be a section between Sec. 103(b)(4)(A) (the takedown notice) and Sec. 102©(2) (the actions to be taken after a notice is served) that requires proof of damages to an IP holder. There should language that says, "The plaintiff must PROVE in a COURT OF LAW that damages have been incurred BEFORE the takedown notice can be served." There is, however, no such language. There is only a meager placation effort in the form of Sec. 103(b)(6) that says "If a defendant has been wronged, he can sue for damages." That doesn't do the defendant much good if he lacks the means to sue, especially if he's spent several years in jail as a result of the frivolous charge against him. Furthermore, that lawsuit can only take place AFTER the site has been shut down, any jail time served, and all other damage is done.

Imagine being able to go to the cops and tell them, "My neighbor stole my TV," and the cops immediately bust down your neighbor's door, arrest him, and give his TV to you. No warrant needed. No court review of the charges. You just file a frivolous charge against your neighbor and get immediate gratification. If he wants his TV back, he can wait until he gets out of jail and then sue you, assuming he can afford a lawyer after X number of years behind bars.

That's what SOPA appears to allow, except applied in an Internet context. It's instant gratification for IP theft claims that side-steps any real burden of proof.

That is my interpretation of SOPA after reading it in its entirety. Roughly the same treatment can be applied to PIPA.

There are better ways to address piracy. I'm liking what I've seen of the OPEN Act. Anyway, I'm not sure why I felt the need to rebut someone who champions the mindset of "Might as well not fight it, 'cause sooner or later you're going to lose", but with any luck I might have given you a new perspective on the protest against SOPA and PIPA. At the very least, I hope you'll stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about. That's egregiously arrogant.