There’s a complicated history behind some of this. The above case is still in court. News headlines are taken from trade industries press releases. There is no such marketing or lobbying for file host’s (i.e. what you called “corporate interests” via what Dodd called them).

So now we have “guilty until proven innocent”, no process first, and the U.S. gets to make and ENFORCE (at taxpayer expense) laws for the whole world … 

And “they” don’t think that’s enough power and want it strengthened. 

I find this deeply disturbing. I also find the comments about the protests, millions of signatures, the fact that anyone who knows anything about the internet is against any form of these bills returning – not just a rewrite. 

The hearings had no “nerds” (as Congress calls internet experts) and this bill was written behind closed doors with no public debate. What’s new? Most of those in Congress hire people to do their tweets. They are absolutley clueless, freely admit it and then want to restructure it according to trade industries wet dreams come true – and these trade industries have a pitiful record of being able to police themselves, tell the truth, extortion, and basically not being much better than legalized Al Capone’s.

People pay $300-$600 for mp3 players and phones so the issue is not money. The issue is content and they want to own ALL of it. No public or independent creations, no fair use, no public domain. The record labels killed commercial radio with their “pay to play” and they want the same for the internet. They DO claim all copyrights for all music even though > 50% sold is independent. 

They have had 10 years to get with digital and haven’t. Then they produce wannabe copycat productions and expect the public to buy in. When 30% or more of the population taking part in sampling content online, when does it become a form of civil disobedence?