I'll give you an example, jk.

A person alleges that this is an offending site. All of the people placing ads here, any billing, any advertising can be shut down within five days. Google Ads simply can't process all of that or investigate all of the complaints in five days, and this site would effectively be shut down.

Burden of proof is shifted to the site owner to prove he doesn't violate any provision of the copyright act - all while the site is effectively shut down (no income). If someone on this site linked to streaming media, the site owner may be guilty of a felony if he briefly and unknowingly hosted copyrighted content.

The attorney can easily blacklist sites. History has shown that putting more and more power in the hands of the government is not always a good idea.

But yeah, just say that I'm in favor of stealing and wash your hands of it.

There was the same kind of debate in the 1970s about the "Beta Max" (the precursor to VHS players/recorders).

They were going to "steal" by recording stuff and playing it later. That would take money away from the copyright holders.

Well, it spawned a whole new industry and a whole new revenue source for copyright holders (that evolved into DVD's today).

The same thing happened when Thomas Edison invented the phonograph. People would no longer go to live performances; they would "steal" the performance by playing a record.

I'm glad that phonographs and VHS players and DVDs were not outlawed (although attempts were made to do that).

The world has to adjust to the Internet. The way to adjust should not involve the ability to immediately shut down a Web site just because I say so.