An open letter to Senator Feinstein - co-sponsor of the US Senate Protect IP Act

Senator Feinstein:

I can appreciate that you have received a large amount of traffic regarding the Protect IP Act.  I can even understand having a form letter for popular topics.  However, I want to make certain that my concern is adequately expressed. I am fully aware that piracy is not protected speech.  Had I written a book, only to find that someone else is selling it for 1/3 the cover price on the street corner, I would be angry.  I have no objection to legitimate copyright holders requesting the removal of their own work from a site, nor do I - in principle - have an objection to providing adequate legal tools to fight piracy.

Here is what I take issue with:
The definition of "Internet site" as currently written would include my blog under the provisions of this bill.

If a "qualifying plaintiff" argues that my blog harms his copyright (highly unlikely as I do my best to respect the law), then

"On application of a qualifying plaintiff following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities ..."
 - From Section 4.b.1 (emphasis mine)

As far as I can tell, based on my reading of the bill, there is no point - before the fact - that the court is required to determine that the Internet site is, in fact, in violation of the law.

Then, once the required notification is submitted to the owner of the hosting service where my blog sits, the owner MUST take action to block my blog.  Relief can be provided IF the court finds that

"the Internet site associated with the domain name subject to the order is no longer, or never was, dedicated to infringing activities as defined in this Act"
 - From Section 4.f.2.A (emphasis mine)

This - to be frank - smacks of guilty until proven innocent.

While the loss of my personal blog is of no great importance to the US economy, I am concerned with what happens when a content owner decides that making a claim of copyright infringement can be used as an economic weapon.  After all, the injunction (or other court remedy) can be applied on application rather than after court determination.  Further, there is no penalty for making a false claim.

You stated in your letter that you feel the bill needs further amendments.  I must agree most heartily that it needs to be changed from its current form.  I insist on a very simple change: require the court to first determine that infringement has actually occurred before taking action.  This would restore the concept of innocent until proven guilty that is foundational to our justice system.