Look, the biggest issue I have with SOPA arguments is that people always spit out what the Web Giants told them.
Today, people think Wikipedia, Google, YouTube, Amazon, Ebay, (and some groups that just like frivolous lawsuits) are all "The Good Guys" and that other big corporations are the bad guys. When they say something people give them unquestioning belief... yet you do have to wonder... where was our blackout over the NDAA? The whole "Kidnap American citizens without due justice" sounds a lot more threatening. Could one not conceive that it is plausible that these "Good Guys" actually had something to GAIN by getting SOPA repealed?
Why did they attack the bill so soon? Several Amendments proposed changes that would counter some of the initial protests (though arguments were not updated to reflect this). The Bill would have to go back and forth between senate and house tallying on changes and amendments before finally landing on the president's desk... yet the attack started before the bill even left committee... before it was even "refined" with amendments... before the rewrite... in fact, the house was technically just DISCUSSING the IDEA of such a bill... it was no where near "the end of all days"
Why the Urgency? Why did the Web Giants feel that they needed to kill the proposal as fast as possible?
DMCA says "copyright owners are responsible for finding all infringements of their copyrights"
SOPA says (and denies saying) "Website Owners should monitor the incoming content for infringements"
But instead of go all hypothetical (or in depth as to other issues), realize that this is what google and wikipedia were fighting against. The removal of the "blind eye" protections.
Of course, there are other issues... such as what the hell IS copyright? No one on YouTube knows the answer to that, or some might but don't really care (and protest when their videos are pulled)... but if copyright owners don't treat all violations the same then they create public unrest (Remember, no one knows what copyright is, only that some no name bozo pulled their totally awesome video.) So if someone decides to rip an entire movie, change a few sounds, and only gets "this video cannot be played in a play list" and the final video is pulled... well, it's an obvious copyright violation... and sure you may sell a few more videos because of "public awareness"... but this DOES create a slippery slope. People protest over the removal of the last vid, say things like it was a dick move, but don't understand that they could have removed ALL the videos.
Copyright holders are absurdly fickle. Could I LEGALLY pirate a movie that cutoff 10 min before it ended? Does that mean the ending is Taboo to touch... or could someone ELSE create "everything except the first 10 min"? If you aren't going to press against chipmunking... can I distribute an entire movie "chipmunked" (let's even say that I didn't actually remove every other frame... but sped-up the rate the frames were processed... so that no quality would be lost if dropped back down). Could 30 people each upload a different portion of a movie without the intent of doing so?
Either it's piracy, or it is not... make up your blasted minds.
But the thing is... the majority of what gets issued DMCA notices should have been removed beforehand.
Sure, you can have smart people not naming it "Stolen Music off my HD" but "Boring Lecture Notes", but how difficult is it to google your own links? See that the sites linking to whatever file was uploaded tend to define it as "Stolen Music off my HD"?
"But we get millions of files uploaded daily"
Then have a COMPUTER do the majority of the work... your service isn't ENTIRELY used to support piracy right? Almost all of those files uploaded should be legit... RIGHT?
If anything, people shouldn't be protesting to repeal GOOD IDEAS... they should be protesting AMENDMENTS to said ideas... if we're all afraid of some bozo taking down a webpage then it should be a felony to do so, and should any ties be found to a company let's charge the president of that company as well, how about the whole board of directors! Punishment for false claims removes a number of complaints. Don't quite understand why having our own DNS servers would break the web, but if our servers aren't directly connected to any "out of country" servers, and new information is added via median... what is the issue? Can it not be fixed? Bills like this do NEED to be broad (if it is too specific, people can easily get around it, at least judicial presidents can rule how "interpretations" of a broad bill may rule)... but it was STILL IN COMMITTEE and specifics weren't yet decided.
So why the repeal instead of fixing the problems?
Honestly... no one really CARES about copyrights... and there really isn't any way to ENFORCE copyright protection without "infringing" upon the first amendment. If you don't remove it people will still use it... the only changes will be the process... and trying to restrict others from finding out the new way to "break the US Firewall"