OK OK OK...first let me say that I am against censorship of the internet. I am against over-reaching political/legal action that could jepordize the free exchange of information across the internet.
That being said....
SOPA and PIPA are ideally means to protect intellectual property, real property, virtual property etc...
Look we copyright things because we own it and want to reap the benefits of that ownership. This can occur through sharing, selling, marketing, and anything else we can think of that may constitute use. (not necessarily financial gain)
These bills are meant to protect content owners, as well as content subscribers from malicious acts of infringement.
I've read several articles and watched numerous videos on "What is PIPA and SOPA?" - What I find a common theme to be is that people are generally OK with Piracy. Ok with stealing someone elses content and posting as their own. Ok with sites that create knockoffs and sell them as the original. Ok with using content that is owned by someone else in such a way to gain financially. or to stop the owner from financial gain.
Music and movies are two big examples of this. I admit it is not popular to be against music file sharing overseas, or torrent streaming of movies that were acquired by something other than legal means. I personally like to find TV, Movies and Music to watch/listen for free. HOWEVER, I admit that it's wrong and that someones rights may be infringed upon.
What if you created some "masterpiece" and created a website and posted it for all to see and purchase if they choose to and anyother merchandise that you created and copyrighted. Then hours (maybe minutes) after your've posted your one of a kind Masterpiece, you find knockoff sites, selling, recreating, merchandising, and corrupting your orignal content? This is what the intent of these bills are meant to combat.
YouTube is a site that allows users to post damn near anything and has a safe harbor clause that limits their liability. However, YouTube agrees and admits that protected content shoud be scrubbed and they do a pretty good job of that. Years ago Mark Cuban was thinking about buying YouTube but raised the question that is being raised today...who's content is it? What will be the legal issues be when "owners" complain? So he passed thinking it would ultimately be too risky.
The other huge concern that pops up in the comments and videos is that "this may destroy the internet", Or some variation. The example given is that a picture is posted on Facebook and in the background there is some copyrighted material (logo). The Company could file a take down notice and have Facebook shut down....This is NOT going to happen.
Copyright law doesn't extend to those types of things, it also doesn't extend to Fan art, Fan fiction, or crafts, or reproductions that could be considered art, craftmanship etc...EVEN if you sold some of these things. The measure of infrigment is a high standard. SUPERMAN FAN art for example that someone sells even though the "S" is trademarked and or copyrited...doesn't fall under PIPA OR SOPA or anyother laws related. Why? Because there is no Malicious intent, or constructive competition, or profit motive that would limit the branding of DC.
Bottom Line is this....if the public feels that this legislation is too over reaching explain it better, write it better, and ensure that the right people are the only ones to be impacted.
Also if an artist wants to give their stuff away for free, don't copyright it, or sign waivers to allow it's use.
Lastly, in my opinion, there has been some DRASTIC overreation and some silly "what if's" ...or this could happen, senarios thrown out there. YES...some crazy stuff could happen, but we have to look at intent and not worst case EXTREME 99.9999% unlikely senarios.
Are the bills flawed? Sure. Are they written in a way that is less than user friendly? Yes. Should we be ok with STEALING? No. Should content owners who want protection be protected? Yes.
The trick is doing it so that it doesn't seem like the sky is falling.