I'm no lawyer, but I was reading over the new proposal and I had a problem with sec. 2 7 A
INTERNET SITE DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITY because it refers to a site that, "(ii) conducts business directed to residents of the United States"

I don't know exactly what that means but it sounds pretty broad. I've never owned a business, so I've never encountered a site like that or the problems inherent.

Maybe it's not a big deal, but any censorship should be met with sensible discourse and prudence.

Someone help me here, but I don't see why we need an alternative? I missed where we needed ANYTHING done at all?? What precisely is the actual problem being solved with this?

To some degree the movie and music industry need to simply get over themselves and stop trying to change reality. They need to adapt to it and learn to work it. Google sure managed and continues to. Entertainment businesses can learn to innovate too....or go under.

For the worst violators, we already have laws in several directions that more than cover that by either criminal or civil. They're already outright dropping domains from the net when it strikes them, so they don't need this for that power either. Tell 'em NO to new laws. We have far too many already.

I don't remember exactly where I saw it, but there was a proposal recently that made sense. Basically, the answer is to write laws in simple English. Say what they want to say, and leave out all the stuph that ultimately leads to all the subjective interpretations they claim ti be avoiding. If a law needs to say it will be illegal to overtly pirate copyrighted material, do they really need 2 million sections, paragraphs, subsections, etc?

This approach would help in tax law for certain.