That more or less sums up what I think about SOPA.

James Boyle has a sarcastic method or writing which I find incredibly amusing. He discusses how the length and scope of intellectual property rights have been regulated, while showing how we have managed to skirt around the same limitations we've imposed. "As with fair use, we impose limitations on the rights when we
hand them out in the first place. The exclusive right conferred by copyright does not include the right to prevent criticism, parody, classroom copying, decompilation of computer programs, and so on" (Boyle 68).

My main question which concerns me is in regards to the Supreme Court vs Napster. There was an idea that Napster's file sharing system was "presumptively fair use" (Boyle 73). Even though no money is exchanged, making the file sharing system tantamount to taping a show on VCR (or TiVo), it is still a gateway to potentially make money, is it not? Mr. Boies' argument of "private noncommercial videotaping is equivalent to private noncommercial file sharing. Both are presumptively fair uses" (Boyle 75) doesn't fly with me. Apparently, it didn't fly with the Supreme Court either.