SOPA, but not the usual

[quarrel]

Stop Online Privacy Act
SEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section expand criminal guilt to the act of copying or distributing works if you did it for money, if the works are worth more than a certain amount, or if you knew they were meant for commercial sale. There’s also some stuff about adding “public performance by means of digital transmission” to the list of ways copyright can be violated.

Then there’s paragraph (c):

(c) Rule of Construction- Any person acting with a good faith reasonable basis in law to believe that the person's conduct is lawful shall not be considered to have acted willfully for purposes of the amendments made by this section. Such person includes, but is not limited to, a person engaged in conduct forming the basis of a bona fide commercial dispute over the scope of existence of a contract or license governing such conduct where such person has a reasonable basis in law to believe that such conduct is noninfringing. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the application or interpretation of the willfulness requirement in any other provision of civil or criminal law.

The bothersome implication is that someone who lacks “a good faith reasonable basis in law” to believe his own actions are legal can be considered to have “willfully violated” the law even if his actions are identical to those of a different person who has a legal background. What’s really bothersome is that until now, I personally could get behind the idea that if you’re in over your head — if you are, in effect, providing your own legal counsel or medical advice with no relevant formal training or experience, you need extra oversight to keep you from hurting people. But I’m no longer sure I like where that leads: the idea that two people can perform the same legal act and have one be a felon for it.