It's now called OPEN.

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/sopa-and-pipa-fully-alive-and-new-bill.html

First, off topic.

Second, that analysis is way off. If anyone actually read the new bill, it would become readily apparent. It is a bit ironic that people who oppose these measures do so largely in part by relying on the value of free flowing information, but then produce false and misleading information.

Third, opposition to OPEN is unwarrented and in my view a clear indicator that those opposed to these types of measures have no respect for the property rights of others and simply want to their stuff for free. You need not look any further than the uproar over the shuttering of megaupload for evidence of that. A balance should be sought and achieved between content and tech. The continued juvenile blanket opposition to any of these types of measures indicates that first amendment concerns and censorship issues are secondary to the complete lack of regard to intellectual property rights owners.

The point is why do we need more legal codes that could possibly be misconstrued by various malcontents to damage America's technology sector? Since it has been proven that current codes in place are suffcient (hence the takedown of Megaupload), why tack on another set of bills? The government doesn't need anymore legal authority to deal with the problem, there's quite enough as it is. There's a whole department with hundreds of techs, field agents, etc. in the FBI (just one example) who sole purpose is anti-piracy. What would this new bill have them do that they're not doing now? Motivate them? Make another department? Why can't we utilize the resources we already have instead of wasting our time creating new ones?

Also, it doesn't matter how many bills you put into Congress or how many agents you send out, the fact is the bootlegging is a highly profitable, global industry. Always has been and always will be. To assume that the American legislative system can somehow stop it is rather naive.

The problem us were codifying into law things that can be addressed under current laws. No new bills are needed, they serve mainly as vehicles for smaller, more dangerous passages

You can only address foreign actors with the consent and cooperation of foreign governments. Saying that current law enforcement authorities are sufficient to address these threats is either naive or disingenuous.

They had no trouble shutting down Megaupload. At least three countries were involved. I think its naive to think that granting our government additional powers to combat 'rogue foreign websites' that will almost certainly overstep their constitutional authority and thinking it's necessary because somehow they 'don't have the power to do it now.'

ffvh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They had no trouble shutting down Megaupload. At
> least three countries were involved. I think its
> naive to think that granting our government
> additional powers to combat 'rogue foreign
> websites' that will almost certainly overstep
> their constitutional authority and thinking it's
> necessary because somehow they 'don't have the
> power to do it now.'

Which three governments? Now try doing the same operation with less cooperative governments. Plus, look at the reaction of hacktivists. They aren't concerned about freedom of speech, they are concerned about their ability to steal.