Finally. A step in the right direction. Just hope the Republicans see it the same way. They have a nasty habit of killing things like this.

Sponsors of the Protect IP Act include Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Just another example of the government protecting the (400,000 quoted) wealthy while 44.2 million are on food stamps.

Government really needs to pull there head out of there ass.

I understand the concerns very well, but I also understand the artists like Xiandi whose work has been ripped. 

The ones who'll be defining the process will be the Courts, as they'll be the ones granting court orders. 

Off topic I know, but a good number of the people on food stamps should not be, they just use and abuse the system. Some people do not even use their food stamps, they "sell them" for a profit. Sadly, food stamps and welfare are the most abused assistance programs in this country. A lot of the people drawing assistance do not even really need it, or they purposely do things that allow them to get it.

Back on topic:  Problem is, what about those web sites that we have no control over, like overseas?  Can they blacklist those from even being seen in the US?  Would be great!

It is extremely unlikely that any action would ever be taken under this bill for a single independent artist's infringement claims. Likewise unless rips are occurring on sites largely and openly dedicated to such, nothing would be done even if the feds did take independent creators seriously.

Postings on DA and similar sites would not be actionable under the bill. Ripping is also not exactly the same thing as piracy (pirates don't generally attempt to take credit for creating that which they distribute).

Regardless, there's a lot more potential for bad to come of this (more power for the feds that they really do not need) than there is for any good to independent creators who are most affected by IP theft.

Copyright already protects a creator's interest. The law already gives content providers enough power to prosecute and end any infringing material.

Kyro has it exactly right: this is more power than necessary to protect IP. It has the potential to stifle correct usage of copywritten material. Even now, take-down notices are used incorrectly. This bill could have a chilling effect on free speech.

I just have fears of this bill being used for purposes other then it's legitimate intent- and I don't trust the court system to police it with its politicized nature at the Supreme Court.  I also have fears that we may end up subsidizing outdated businesses such as the record industry/RIAA that are a drain on artists.

I do think artists need protection- provided they can show actual harm.

Many independent artists aren't rich, I have several professional artist friends, who are equally passionate on this issue (we've had our share of arguments)- and they don't make a whole lot.

If given away, no. If sold, yes. This bill is more applicable, it's true. I think if syndication of the thieves could be proven, it would be a different matter, or if they got together or were present on a Torrent type site.

I don't agree, but no biggy. You're entitled to your opinion. I don't see the proposed legislation being used to kill criticism as that isn't at all in the Bill. I think you're fearing something that isn't there. It's a lot easier for the Gov't. to bring a thief to court than for you to do so. Also a lot cheaper. I applaud this legislation.

I'd also go further and say RICO should be expanded to cover these hackers who work for organized crime which has shifted to the cyber crime arena for profit. Android malware has increased 400%, XP owners are seeing much more malware directed towards them as W7, while increasing in number is decreasing percentage wise.

I think this is part of the larger initiative regarding the Internet and encouraging Security and commerce while at least trying to stifle crime. The reassuring part is that it's in its infancy and open to a good deal of input. Sooo... if you've got constructive stuff to offer, hook up with a Consumer group and make your thoughts heard.

The sites they're after are already out of country, this bill is pointless nonsense as an excuse for grabbing more power.  An attribute to be expected considering the useless shit's sponsoring it, not one of them in the list should be trusted further than they can swim with an anchor tied around their neck, and I recommend testing in advance to see how far they get.

it may be a step in the right direction, but will it really do anything to protect the little person?. More likely this bill is being set in place by pressure from the music and movie industyr to combat piracy. Theres really no money in hammering some schmuck who rips a persons work and uploads it as their own on sites like DA, But someone who downloads a few songs or movies are going to be ripped to shreds because thats where the money is. This is more about lining the pockets of lawyers and company execs rather than actually protecting peoples rights IMO

Just one more nail. And the question is......whose coffin will it be......ours or theirs?

Off topic: This is one of my pet peeves too, Tom. If you're LEGITIMATELY unable to work, okay, if you're TEMPORARILY down on your luck, okay, but this cradle to grave living off the government is plain old BS in my book. And I know some would say it's really none of my business but actually, as long as I work and Uncle Sam's taxing my paycheck, yeah, it kinda is...

Absolutely right.