Have you read Senate 968 (or the House equivalent ) in its entirety? Do you understand every statement in the bill? You can find an easier-to-read version at http://magree.blogspot.com/2012/01/text-of-protect-ip-senate-bill-968.html.
Are you aware of the ambiguity of the subtitle? What are the "other purposes"?
Are you aware that there is at least one grammatical error in the bill?
Are Republicans aware that this bill is more regulation on businesses and that it expands the bureaucracy?
Is this bill in the interests of corporations or in the interests of people? For example, can I simply write a letter to the Attorney General stating that a certain site is using one of my copyrighted pictures? Or will I have to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a lawyer to make a complaint on my behalf?
This bill does give service providers a standing for denying service to those they deem acting inappropriately. But doesn't it also give a "hunting license" to companies that will go after any company or person they deem aiding and abetting inappropriate sites. For example, might these "hunters" give a long list of sites they consider inappropriate to ISPs or domain name servers? And then won't these latter have to spend resources vetting that list and acting on their findings?
This bill requires various agencies to give Congress an annual report not only an assessment of the bill's effectiveness, but a list of each instance that the Attorney General took action enforcing this bill. See Section 7. Guidelines and Studies. Will all these agencies be given sufficient resources to do this work? And will that not require more taxes?
