I apologize for this as it may seem like a rant...  but....   Why is it, every time some mentions a benefit like food stamps... somebody has to mention an aside about how 'some people' abuse them? There is still way more coroprate welfare than poor people welfare.  And who has eliminated most of the decent jobs in the USA so that more and more people, exhausted from working two mininum wage jobs and still falling behind, finally say, enough is enough!  .. I wish people who are oppopsed to 'abuses' of tax monies would ALSO point out how the rich, powerful, corporate, ruber-rich 'families' abuse tax dollars every time they decide to also (as an aside) point out how the weaker, poorer, less powerful, folks in society sometimes abuse (il-legally steal) tax dollars.  GE comes redily to mind, as do the billions that go to crop subsidies which almost  exclusivly are paid to multi-million dollaer agri-corps. Lets not forget the incredible subsidise oil and gas companies get....   

And, as far as cradle to grave benefits, yes, of course, it should never be allowed.  I have a neighbor, who is mid 30's and has down syndrome.  She has  no family.  She should be put work.   Perhaps the IMF has a job for her?  She is pretty.  (alert; preceeding six sentences are sarcasm.)

The truest test of the character of a society, and of an individual, is how they treat the least powwerful people around them.  

If you really want your taxes to go down, then return the taxes on the uber-rich and corporations back to the levels they were in the 1960s!

I have to agree with kyro.

Most of these sites are far from the feds reach so all this will do is give the feds the ability to censor what USA residents have access to.

That's what entered my mind immediately. More power to be abused. You know someone will. 

While I generally empathize with the singular artist attempting to safeguard his work from potential theft, this bill is a step in the wrong direction. It would be one thing if the bill gave individual IP holders the right to sue individuals and sites in cases wherein they are posting copyrighted materials as not the work of the IP holder. However, I am skeptical of granting the federal government such blanket authority over web sites where in they can simply blacklist a site for any purpose. While this type of legislation can be back by the best of intentions in helping the small time artist, it opens a door towards direct government control of the internet, which is fundamentally a bad idea.

So, basically anyone who able to put enough pressure on the Government using this Bill's power as it's avenue is able to protect their IP rights at the expense of other's rights, and everyone who is not able to put enough pressure on the Government using this Bill's power as it's avenue is basically fucked.

Sounds like a typical Corporate lobbied Bill, to me.

As my friends have said, if they continue to wittle away rights and leave everything open all while using "IP Rights" as the justification, VPNs are going to become the next big thing.  The Internet?  That's for Corporate lackies.  Real men have WANs, VPNs and other disconnected largescale networks with which to share their items.

What....the 'rights' to be free to steal others' IP?

I think you are completely correct to feel that IP theft is not necessarily a good thing, but there is a fine line here with respect to IP protection.

Yes it does ... 

As an Artist, IP allows me to make an income, where otherwise someone can make money out of my hard work. There is already a strong system of protection, I sure don't need the US government's help.

US needs to fix their Patent system and stop protecting outdated business models.

yup.

ElanaAhova is right as well as Nav. I can't stand parasites of any stripe. Incidentally, Corporations already pay the highest tax rate in the world here. Raise their taxes and take away their candy and I promise you they'll be gone. As for the rich? Not a single one of them pays what he should: But that's the fault of the tax code. Would YOU pay more if you had a legal way not to? 

Oh yes...

Not a single one of you said "Thank you" to I.D. or Jafo.

Not a single one of you did the same for $chix0r, yet you're all the first to jump on someone guilty of ripping. You're the ones staunchly defending the artist but also the ones worried that the President and Congress are out to steal every fractal/Bryce wallpaper they can along with your "right" to free speech as well as all your other "rights". Right. They won't, simply because they want you to vent. If you couldn't, pressure might build up.

It's beyond funny. Lucky for you they aren't interested in taking your "rights". I'd love to see the gamers and "from my cold, dead hands" folks finally have to "put up or shut up."   I'd also like to own the underwear factory. 

They'd be the first to say, "Where's that ticket to?" and the first to complain that "hey, no one turned the airport lights off."

Thanks for saying and helping me say 'thank you'. 

That's funny, our corporations say the same thing.

Thank you I.D, Jafo ...  

I.D. and Jafo are great. They work hard to protect true skinners from rip-off artists. Thanks you two!

I.P. is the ugly bastard relative of 'normal' property typically ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.

Idiots confuse Intellectual with ineffectual/insignificant/irrelevant/immaterial.

The actual PERTINENT end of the phrase "Intellectual Property" is the PROPERTY bit.

My I.P. is MY PROPERTY, no-one else's.

It's such a simple concept it beggars belief how people can MISS THE POINT.

I do not care a TOSS WHO on this God's abomination of a planet may determine/decree otherwise, be it by arrogance, greed, subterfuge or legislation....if something is MINE then it is MINE.

...until I give it to someone else, [with or without remuneration].

If I DID NOT GIVE IT AWAY it was TAKEN FROM ME WITHOUT CONSENT.

And that IS "theft".

So according to this bill, who decides when to blacklist a site? Does a court have to allow the blacklisting? What happens if the site takes down the material? Is there a way to challenge the blacklisting?

Like most things it really comes down to implementation, not the purpose of the bill. And there is plenty of room here for that kind of thing.

The problem here is not that people are too ignorant to understand the whole property bit. Property as we know it is not some natural phenomena that people simply uncovered, but is a metaphysical concept that has been developed as an extension of our territorial nature. Thus, land and homes are naturally understandable as property from our nature, but thoughts and idea are much harder to wrap into this definition of property as their inclusion is an incredibly recent event historically speaking. In fact, most of the great artists and thinkers of history had no such protections for their works, and in many cases, the artists were pushed to develop greater artworks as a result.

In modern times, the concept of intellectual property has yet to prove itself as being for the good of people. With respect to art, it is an easy argument to say that an artist should have control over their artwork, yet one need only point to Mickey Mouse as an example of a work of art that has long since been in the control of the artist. In general, thoughts and ideas kept from the public are in ever way a detriment to the advancement of humanity. For example, a company which develops a cheap method of curing cancer could simply be bought up by another company producing a similar yet more expensive treatment, and due to protections on intellectual property, that cheap treatment may be hidden at a huge cost to the general public.

As I have said before, I very much empathize with artists seeking to maintain control of their art, and in the case of an artist who has some physical medium of art stolen, I support harsh treatment for the offenders. However, it is hard to support legislation that intends to give individuals the ability to control thoughts and ideas. In fact, such legislation would go against the fundamentals of art itself, as art intends to provoke  an emotional and intellectual response. Would this response be the property of the IP holder?

I figured it would be helpful for a good definition of IP.  Its Wikipedia, feel free to discredit it...sounds pretty spot on though.

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

So what level of extremism do you take this to? Do you have it within your personal and/or corporate power to protect your rights?  Countries may say they own territory, but it is their ability to protect this territory through the use of force or diplomacy that originally defined the borders.

Do you have within your personal power to protect your property 100%, meaning all profits that could be made will be 100% received, no borrowing of material for personal use, and no sale to other persons?

That answer is no, and it is upsetting to you, obviously.  But, are you rewarded quite well for your work, can you live comfortably on your wage? Are there people you can definitively prove that steal bread from your mouth and those of your family? The responsibility of any wrongdoing is not anyone nearby, but some unknown person(s) far away.  Another way to look at this with the same degree of responsibility is that, do you kill children? If you support a government that does with your tax dollars then, yes you do, but the responsibility you feel for this is divided amongst the millions that also support the country, so therefore you feel no responsibility, when in fact you do have a very small amount.  The USA has killed children in Iraq.  It will continue to kill other children too.  The system is works because it is designed to disconnect you with the reality of your actions and therefore you don't have to care.

What if the issue is not of survival but of whether or not you will afford the second summer house.  You may feel you are justified in that you deserve this, and there are laws in place to allow you to have the summer house, and by god you will have it. 

The problem is that god (I mean this as the "beginning" of things) made more than one person for this planet.  In effect, all things are communal property to some extent, whether we like to admit it or not.  One person breathes the same air that another does, does it make it his air?  One person feels the sun rays creating vitamin D in his skin making him feel good.  Does this mean that this is his sun?   One man kills another for land, does this make it his land?  Another man buys a summer house with an idea of value, does this make the land his?  He may have conned another man out of something useful for an idea with physical attributes, but that makes it no less his or any other mans.

If man were to die, would the earth even care who owned what?  The reality stares you in the face, when you die your stuff doesn't mean a damn thing now, doesn't it?  There is no law, legislation, or anything in this world that can change this.  It IS.  Your possessions can be used by your loved ones, or anyone smart enough to acquire them, but they do you little good.

No one should prevent anyone the right to survive.  But, no one should take far more then what is theirs to the detriment of others. Everyone has some understanding of this, it depends upon what specifically is being said, and who is getting hurt the most.  Rich people can always get hurt the most, since they have the most to lose.  Wealthy human beings require the most support of any living creature on the planet. I mean literally, man is at the top of the food chain, and the richest, most powerful men are at the top of the "food chain" for man.  If ANYTHING were to change substantially, be it major changes in laws, large scale mass extinctions, massive death, etc. the current framework that supports the wealthy would crumble, and they would face a very tough reality, they might not be considered valuable anymore.  This is why wealthy individuals need things to continue on as the same, even though the INTERNET has affected their support structure.  Control of information is the first key to protecting oneself, and naturally the internet created a disaster for information control. Information is also the most strategically important asset in war, and therefore must be protected.

This bill is another feeble attempt to create an illusion of protection of intellectual property, do you think it will change anything?  Will piratebay still be online? yes.  Will the games you design still be unprotected from hackers and pirates? Yes.  Will you still lose money to these people? yes.  Perhaps hoping that editing the internet will allow you greater protection will give you a false sense of security at night.  If the internet becomes so blatantly censored, then you can also rest assure that its value will decline, and that any industry that is connected to it will also decline. I mean the technology biz, and the entertainment industry as well.  Looks like Stardock has a lot to lose from this in the long term.  You can never really be sure that these hackers/pirates truly are hurting you or your corporation, the analysis of this is truly witch-doctory, and has little merit.

What we are witnessing with this bill is a bunch of unimaginative, hard bitten old men/women (old in ways of doing things based upon the available information of the environment, not physical age) trying to desperately cling onto their idea of business when things have changed so much that they don't fully understand what is going on.  They are failing to adapt, and this is common with old age, as well as old ideas.  Nature has a solution for this, it is called death, and old ideas become forgotten, or humorous.  Google has provided a different solution for businessmen, and some don't want to adapt with the times, because it requires a different way of thinking.  Even though google has made billions, many people would rather do business as usual then to use their brains and innovate, for whatever reason. You have to realize what is within your power (realistically) and what is not within your power(some egos get in the way here, as they feel they have all the power over their creations).  You create a free "hook" that is so good you make people feel they need it.  You then make money off of your creation, by selling things within your control.  What has happened is that the internet has changed what is within your control, and old men are really upset by this, since they thought that they had such things under TOTAL control.

They still have many things under their control, but they feel angry that something was taken from them that was theirs, things like control of distribution of music. All the while the music industry has actually boomed, except that they haven't been reaping 100% of the rewards, some small people have actually been able to make money by going with another distributor, the internet.

The internet out competes their old, inefficient ways of distribution, and they seek to remedy this.

I don't care if this bill gets passed or not, because in the end, the old, outdated ideas will turn to dust in the corpses of the men who had them and be forgotten, as nature has found a more efficient way to distribute ideas.