Please help if you can - the internet needs you!

That vote was on an amendment proposed by the "good" guys. Which got shot down, like a lot of amendments proposed yesterday did. Basically the people on our side (Issa, Lofgren, Chaffetz, Polis) are trying to take the teeth out of this bill by doing things like requiring a court order to get sites taken down - and everyone else is killing those amendments.

This bill is probably going to pass, make no mistake - our only real hope is that someone can get enough amendments cleared to slow it down when it's implemented.

They're counting the votes now.

It looks like the majority for NOW (recess until 1PM) is NO. 8 voted I, 20 voted nay.

that was just for the amendment to not specifically allow private actions for copyright holders. since that was turned down, it will be specifically allowed and copyright holders will be able to directly sue those who they perceive as violating their content rights. opponents to the amendment say those actions will only be taken against foreign entities, but supporters say only the justice department should have that right domestically and internationally, especially since the righsholders normally have huge amounts of capital to weather protracted legal battles, whereas many entities (businesses or individuals) won't.

in addition, there isn't a "loser pays" clause, so like with the RIAA suits of years past, these huge rightsholders with hundreds of millions of dollars in capital will deliver papers and the supposed violator will probably settle and pay a fine because they don't have the resources to fight the legal battle.

after watching a small portion of the proceedings (an hour or so), i think the major disconnect is that supporters of the overall bill really think it will only be used to go after really malicious sites that host viruses, phishing schemes, and counterfeit goods. as a result, they're all about passing it and getting those who are out there preying on both individuals and content rights holders. but those who actually understand the language and how the internet currently works realize that it can and probably will be used by content rights holders to eliminate a lot of valid and legal expression along with the malicious or offending content. not really sure how that divide can be bridged.

Crap. thanks for that VQ. I just jumped into it. Was this the OPEN Act here? http://www.keepthewebopen.com/open

That site is where you'll find the live video coverage and the bill as it's being edited - users watching the video are making the edits to the language of the bill.

The bill displayed there is the actual SOPA bill itself.

Right..I get that. But are the amendments being proposed being taken from ideas in that act or from somewhere else entirely? I just want to know here I can find the amendments they were discussing.

(forgive me for my lack of knowledge when it comes to politics. I hate how the system works).

Dude - one guy ACTUALLY SAID yesterday, "I don't know what the internet does, but I'm in favor of this bill."

Last night I had a horrifying dream that a group of well-intentioned middle-aged people who could not distinguish between a domain name and an IP address were trying to regulate the Internet. Then I woke up and the Judiciary Committee's SOPA hearings markup was on.

STATUS: No vote on the bill.
WHY: Chaffetz suggests a hearing with experts. Astoundingly, Smith is open to the idea and agrees, therefore the motion is carried.
WHAT: The session is over without a vote. The deliberations will resume in 2012 (this was the last day of work for Congress this year) with experts participating but there is no mention of who those experts are or will be. I am unclear if they agreed to have experts or if they agreed to consider having experts.
UHH: The term "classified hearing" was used, I don't know what it means. According to common sense and some quick internet research, classified hearings would be closed to the public, not shown on tv, and the records would not be available until such a time as they were declassified.
IS THIS GOOD OR BAD: IT IS VERY GOOD. As long as the bill isn't voted on and passed, it cannot go further down the assembly line of legislation. The extra 3 weeks or so of reprieve gives the opponents of SOPA time to mobilize further and enlist more aide.
WHAT DO: Keep contacting your representatives. Call them. Mail them letters. Tell your friends, tell your family. Time works in our favour.
Twitter accounts worth watching (thanks to [1] m_i_rite)
[2] Darrell Issa
[3] Jarred Polis (mistakenly called Sanchez by some)
[4] Zoe Lofgren
[5] Jason Chaffetz
edit: I'll keep adding to this if/when people or myself fill in more data.

Dude - one guy ACTUALLY SAID yesterday, "I don't know what the internet does, but I'm in favor of this bill."

Update.... Or not. Despite the fact that Congress was supposed to be out of session until the end of January, the Judiciary Committee has just announced plans to come back to continue the markup this coming Wednesday. This is rather unusual and totally unnecessary. But it shows just how desperate Hollywood is to pass this bill as quickly as possible, before the momentum of opposition builds up even further.

Dude - one guy ACTUALLY SAID yesterday, "I don't know what the internet does, but I'm in favor of this bill."

These are the people who are debating this right now. And we have like 4 or 5 representatives on our side, and they're getting shot down left and right.

this is frustrating to watch.