S. 968, the Protect IP Act, allows the government or a corporation to enforce a takedown of a website if a judge determines it is an “ISDIA” (Internet site dedicated to infringing activities).

Two very different stories about the Protect IP Act are being told.

Artists opposing the PROTECT-IP / SOPA Act has one take:

We, the undersigned artists, have all been empowered by the Internet. Today, artists can reach large audiences and make a living because the Internet and digital tools have democratized the means to create, distribute, and promote our work.

We write to you today because we are concerned with S.968, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). Copyright law exists to promote the arts, but the new penalties in PIPA could be used against the new social media channels we depend on to make a living, and endanger freedom of expression.

PIPA creates new penalties against sites dedicated to infringing activity, but we worry it will be abused to attack legitimate sites we rely on. Many trailblazing social media websites could look like piracy havens to judges unfamiliar with the Internet. In the past, music and film companies have attacked many new technologies – like the VCR and MP3 player – claiming that they were tools for piracy. Recently, these same companies have sued video hosting platforms like Veoh and YouTube.

We use online video sites, file hosts like Dropbox and Mediafire, and online music communities like Soundcloud to host our work, collaborate with others, and build a community. We fund our work with services like Kickstarter and Flattr. We publish our work on sites like Tumblr, WordPress, and Blogger. Any one of these services could be sued under PIPA.

The Motion Picture Association of America is humming a different tune:

Asserting, without proof, that the bill’s definition of infringing sites is “vague” doesn’t make it so. This letter gets it wrong right off the bat by beginning its argument with “Legitimate sites with legitimate uses can also in many cases be used for piracy” – while that’s unfortunately true, the PROTECT IP Act simply does not apply to legitimate sites.

In fact, the PROTECT IP Act is, intentionally, so narrowly focused that it covers only websites whose sole purpose is to provide or point to stolen content. The bill’s definition of an “Internet site dedicated to infringing activities” states:

“the term `Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’ means an Internet site that has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement … or is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating” infringement (see Section 2(7), emphasis ours).

It’s clear that this definition is meant to apply to the Pirate Bays of the world, not the Twitters or the LinkedIns or the FourSquares. And it’s difficult to see how such a definition will be “ripe for abuse” when any entity pursuing an action under this bill, whether it’s the Department of Justice or a private creator – will have to prove to a federal court that a given website meets that description before anything else happens.

Read the text of the bill yourself. What do you think?