Unfortunately you can't really cite something that isn't there. My point is that there's nothing in SOPA that says what Tom's Hardware claims.
The bill breaks down into two main sections.
Section 102 covers foreign sites only. It grants the government the power to tinker with DNS and remove sites from Google search results. It only applies to sites registered overseas that have no US points of contact. In other words, it's an attempt to deal with sites that moved overseas to avoid the DMCA. This is the core of why the bill exists. Debate the DNS technical issue all you want, but since Tom's Hardware isn't overseas, none of this applies to them.
Section 103 extends the DMCA to allow individuals to send takedown notices to payment providers and ad networks. Again, I can't cite something that isn't there, but you can read the bill (it's really rather short) and see that it explicitly does not mention DNS. That stuff requires action by the Attorney General and separate approval by a Judge (section 102).
Both section 102 and 103 powers further limited ONLY to sites that "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than" copyright infringement (17 USC 501), circumventing copyright (17 USC 1201), or trademark infringement (18 USC 2320).
Is Tom's Hardware a site that is primarily designed for the purpose of copyright infringement? Not at all. The bill doesn't even apply to them.
There are certainly parts of the bill worth tweaking and debating, but it's going to be hard to make progress on that in the total absence of facts.
I also think it was a huge mistake for PG to boycott and uninvite people from the demos over SOPA.
If a company stands up and expresses an opinion which matches its business interests during the debate over an unpassed bill -- that somehow renders them unworthy to talk to entrepreneurs who have a different opinion? The bill is in flux and the debate is heated (and, as shown above, largely uninformed).
If anything, the way to fix some of these idiotic, outdated copyright laws is to combine great tech with the IP assets held by the old guard and open up new opportunities. But PG doesn't want the two sides even talking while the debate is under way? That's premature and shortsighted.
The bill breaks down into two main sections.
Section 102 covers foreign sites only. It grants the government the power to tinker with DNS and remove sites from Google search results. It only applies to sites registered overseas that have no US points of contact. In other words, it's an attempt to deal with sites that moved overseas to avoid the DMCA. This is the core of why the bill exists. Debate the DNS technical issue all you want, but since Tom's Hardware isn't overseas, none of this applies to them.
Section 103 extends the DMCA to allow individuals to send takedown notices to payment providers and ad networks. Again, I can't cite something that isn't there, but you can read the bill (it's really rather short) and see that it explicitly does not mention DNS. That stuff requires action by the Attorney General and separate approval by a Judge (section 102).
Both section 102 and 103 powers further limited ONLY to sites that "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than" copyright infringement (17 USC 501), circumventing copyright (17 USC 1201), or trademark infringement (18 USC 2320).
Is Tom's Hardware a site that is primarily designed for the purpose of copyright infringement? Not at all. The bill doesn't even apply to them.
There are certainly parts of the bill worth tweaking and debating, but it's going to be hard to make progress on that in the total absence of facts.
I also think it was a huge mistake for PG to boycott and uninvite people from the demos over SOPA.
If a company stands up and expresses an opinion which matches its business interests during the debate over an unpassed bill -- that somehow renders them unworthy to talk to entrepreneurs who have a different opinion? The bill is in flux and the debate is heated (and, as shown above, largely uninformed).
If anything, the way to fix some of these idiotic, outdated copyright laws is to combine great tech with the IP assets held by the old guard and open up new opportunities. But PG doesn't want the two sides even talking while the debate is under way? That's premature and shortsighted.