Too little too late... And, this quote (from the article):

"If we don’t protect our intellectual property, international criminals — as well as legitimate businesses like payment processors and ad networks — will continue to profit dishonestly from the work these Americans are doing every day. And that puts these millions of jobs at serious risk."

...is some serious FUD.

Yes. That and this, "If this bill really did some of the things people have heard it would do (like shutting down YouTube), I would never have supported it." indicate that he still doesn't technically get it.

I think the issue is that it is technically correct that this bill wouldn't 'shut down' YouTube. There is no language in the bill that prohibits sharing of non copyright infringing videos on the internet.

However, the language of the bill would make a website like YouTube a practical impossibility. They wouldn't be able to keep their doors open because there would be too much overhead in complying with the new laws, and they would be under constant threat of being shut down tomorrow, because someone claimed infringement.

I sympathize that someone who really doesn't understand how websites work and how something like YouTube functions would not understand this distinction.

However, if you don't understand the technical details about this, you should have a hearing and defer to experts rather than asking a bunch of MPAA and RIAA lobbyists to write a bill for you. It is like asking a militant vegan to design your slaughterhouse.

To be very literal, I don't think that Youtube itself would have been in much danger of being shut down if the bill(s) had passed. They're too big now. But tomorrow's Youtube, that's another matter.

These laws just give these corporations a blank check to wield with minimal due process and without recourse if they abuse it. The DMCA is currently being abused by these companies but no politician talks about that.

The issue isn't that this bill may or may not shut down Youtube. It's more that it might make Youtube, or future sites like Youtube, too legally difficult to run. That the responsibility for policing piracy would be an unfair burden on legal Internet businesses. Or that the lack of due process and consequences will result in legitimate sites being wiped from the Internet.

Strangely, he didn't include his large campaign contributions from the Entertainment industry in his analysis of the laws.

I might respect his position a bit more if he commented on this. However, I can see the position of these guys since this is really the ONLY way to hurt non-US-based sources of pirated and "fake" merchandise.

Of course, no analysis from the industry or Congress has every shown any conclusive evidence that piracy or "fake" consumer goods causes any major financial hardship towards manufacturers. Many people contend that these goods would just not be purchased if people's only option was the "full price" or "legal" versions.