I'm a fence sitter on this one.
<conspiracy>
My biggest worry is they know they are going to far, so the watered down version (that is still shit) passes through quietly.
</conspiracy>
I believe that is their intention. Apparently the sponsors to the bill have already agreed to fine tune it to be more relevant.
Whilst I don't necessarily support their position, I can kind of see where they are coming from. From what I understand the bill is targetted at site publishers and hosts who intentionally publish pirated stuff for financial gain. So I don't see that it will affect G&GR if say a forum member posts a youtube link to rugby footage pinched from Foxtel because G&GR will not directly make money from it. Some would argue that if G&GR hosts google adds or rugby book adds for a fee and allows members to post pirate stuff it could be seen as revenue raising through increased site traffic. Don't quote me but I expect the onus will be on the copyright holder to prove a site knowingly intended to profit directly from hosting pirated stuff. The real target of the bill is to bust pay-for-view sites that charge users to access someone else's hardwork, and there are hundreds of these on the web that blatantly ask for subscription fees to watch pirated movies and TV. Worse case scenario, how would you like it if another site started charging viewers to access pirated versions of Scotty's game stats and analyses or Lance's fine prose?
It's an election year, the majority of Democrats don't like its wording and Congress will procrastinate over it for ages anyway so I wouldn't be holding my breath.