The problem with many portions of the bill is the wording.
The bill authorizes the government to shut down any website that is accused of posting copyrighted materials without permission. The site would remain shut down until adjudications are completed. That means that, if the bill was passed today, YouTube would be shut down tomorrow until every single accusation of copyright infringement was settled. How many videos on YouTube use music without permission? Millions? And make note of the fact that all it takes is an accusation. If you have a website for your little one-man production company your ex-girlfriend or a disgruntled PA could accuse you of using copyrighted material on your website (even if there isn't) and your website would be automatically shut down and stay down until the FCC (or whoever) hears your case, which could take months or even years.
The bill also mandates that websites must police themselves. For example, every single video submitted to YouTube would have to be reviewed by YouTube for potential copyright violations. That means Google would have to hire people to review each video as it is submitted. How long do you think YouTube would remain a free site; the costs to review every video would be astronomical.
Another example would be you take a picture of your camera to use on eBay; it looks like the manufacturers picture. All it takes is the accusation that the picture is under copyright to shut down eBay until the case is heard. That's right, they shut down eBay, not just pull your ad.
It would also be the perfect way for political or business rivals to strangle each other. Just imagine Apple accusing Microsoft of using copyrighted materials without permission. Under current wording of the bill all Microsoft websites would be shut down until the case is heard. Or Romney accuses Obama and the DNC of using copyrighted materials without permission, so all Obama/DNC websites would have to be shut down until the cases are heard.
And, if you want to get technical - and lawyers make their living on technicalities - it may be possible to shut down a website if you link to copyrighted materials. In IndieTalks "Song of the Day" thread we link to YouTube videos of favorite songs; a lawyer could decide that, even though the song is legally on YouTube, IndieTalk is in copyright violation for having the video available in the thread.
Yes, I'm aware that these are extreme examples. Everyone keeps saying that those types of things would never happen, but the way the law is written the potential for those types of abuses are there and they will affect "the little guy" as he does not the litigation potentials of the big corporations. But the real crux of the matter is that everything is founded upon accusations, not proof. The intention of the law is admirable, but the laws of unintended consequences will jump up to bite you in the rear every single time.
