Personally, I think the true intent of SOPA is to prevent a Jasmine Revolution happening in the US (or Europe), and to prevent sites like WikiLeaks from spreading.
The US saw that Twitter and Facebook were key driving forces behind the events in Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. Today they have not much control over these sites (other than politely requesting Twitter to delay a system upgrade[1] because Iranians were using it to coordinate their activities). Thanks to SOPA, they'll have a sledgehammer in their arsenal to knock these sites around.
Similarly, they could just talk to Amazon to not host Wikileaks[2]; but if Amazon had refused to comply, they couldn't have done much (OK, other than maybe quickly imposing a federal sales tax). Now, thanks to SOPA, they can completely shutdown AWS should the next Wikileaks crop up.
That didn't work so well for Amazon, since they got the sales tax anyway. So they ended up with both a bad reputation and a sales tax. I wish they would've at least refused to take down Wikileaks. When in doubt, do the right thing.
if you know how Amazon works internally you wouldn't be surprised of their action. They're just another business with no concern about 'doing the right thing' unfortunately.
How would SOPA give the U.S. govt. any more power over Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon? The DNS blocking is basically the same power as domain seizing, which the feds already have today. In other words if the U.S. govt wanted to try to take down Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon today, they could already do so by trying to seize their domains. There's no difference in the process or standard of proof. The only thing SOPA adds is DNS blocking since the feds do not have jurisdiction over domains registered outside the U.S.
It is great to stand up to bad legislation, but it is not great to be hyperbolic and inaccurate about the bill.
"The DNS blocking is basically the same power as domain seizing, which the feds already have today."
A similar point was made during the SOPA congressional hearing (sorry I forget by whom).
The problem with that argument is that it mischaracterizes recent government behavior with powers that the government actually has a well-established legal right to assert.
As I understand it, they "have the power" to seize domains in the same way that they "have the power" to attach surveillance devices to your car without a warrant. i.e. "Because they're doing it and we haven't successfully sued them or otherwise forced them to stop."
Whether or not one thinks the feds should have the power to seize domains, my point is just that SOPA does not expand that power w/respect to U.S.-based sites.
Another perspective that's occurred to me: this is a battle (in part) between the old world of software distribution (sold, in physical units, proprietary), vs. the new (SAAS, and to a small extent, free software distributed over the Net).
In the case of SAAS vs. desktop/locally installed software, it's hardly surprising that Google and Microsoft end up on opposite ends of this debate. What helps one most certainly hurts the other. And to that extent, other players in this game are probably pawns to an extent.
That said: SOPA is bad, bad, bad legislation and I'm very strongly opposed.
I'm not directly affected by SOPA as I don't live in the US, but it certainly is a concern of mine that if it were to pass, it can be used to motivate such actions in other countries despite the recent negative statements on SOPA from the EU Parliament. It's a "but look, even they are doing it"-thing.
In other words, here is yet another person hoping it doesn't pass, no matter what the true intention is.
EDIT: I do realize, however, that sites used by me which are hosted in the US can be brought down and affect me directly.
I'm pretty sure the US is copying China in this regard. Governments look up to other governments with economic power.
Until a huge public outcry will happen, governments are going to do everything they can to control the Internet in every way possible. To make matters worse, these changes are implemented gradually and the negative effects such legislation will have on the public will start being obvious 5 to 10 years from now, when the inertia will be too great for anything to be done about it. I mean, even the Patriot Act is still active, so what chances does something like SOPA has to be retracted if passed? Especially since it is portrayed like those damn pirates are stealing your jobs.
See the old boiling frog anecdote.
I'm gradually losing faith in humanity - these days it's as if for every step forward, there are 2 steps backwards.
My gut has been that it is backed (and would be exploited) by corporations, specifically big media. Combine this with poor IP laws and you've got a scenario in which corporate censorship can thrive.
At this point that no matter what happens we're screwed. I see why the people in industry want to back SOPA. As a copyright holder of something that costs a lot of money to make of course you want to make sure someone's not getting it for free.
I feel that laws like this could be way too broad and definitely hurt companies that rely on general Internet content like the people making noise against it (Google, Facebook, and Twitter for example). I couldn't imagine the chilling effect this would have for those companies to come up with ways to remove the offending content. This would eat into their profits and make their products less useful.
On the other hand I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Should the companies just accept that a certain amount of piracy is going to happen? Should they charge less for content and make it more accessible? That may be a feel-good thing to say but to create the high production values for your favorite movie today costs money.
As to why I think we're screwed I imagine that if (when?) this bill doesn't pass then the companies will enact even more draconian options to curb piracy or copyright infringement.
Woah, sopa is a future Wikileaks killer. Woah suddenly everything clicked in my mind. Mpaa, riaa, internet copying and "saving the children" are just pieces in a great chess game where Congress keeps itself the most powerful entity on the planet... With a website off switch to be used on any website worldwide that successfully challenges its authority. All bills giving any central authority power over the worldwide internet must be stopped. Internet > all governments... Combined. Internet should be free like a conversation in your home is free.
The US saw that Twitter and Facebook were key driving forces behind the events in Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. Today they have not much control over these sites (other than politely requesting Twitter to delay a system upgrade[1] because Iranians were using it to coordinate their activities). Thanks to SOPA, they'll have a sledgehammer in their arsenal to knock these sites around.
Similarly, they could just talk to Amazon to not host Wikileaks[2]; but if Amazon had refused to comply, they couldn't have done much (OK, other than maybe quickly imposing a federal sales tax). Now, thanks to SOPA, they can completely shutdown AWS should the next Wikileaks crop up.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/16/us-iran-election-t...
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-websit...