Problems in the selective reading of the proposed law
I notice that the part about a lack of opportunity to dispute has been omitted but I would appreciate if you clarified that change to earlier readers who may have been mislead. Upon a second reading, I have some other problems with your argument.
"The bill provides specific liability protection, so that if these providers cut off service to a site under the incorrect belief that it was dedicated to infringing activities, there's no remedy for those sites. "
Actually no, there is a remedy for providers cut off under an incorrect belief. ISP's can only voluntarily cut off service if there is a [b]reasonable belief[/b] and [b]credible evidence[/b] of infringing activities. In other words if the ISP voluntarily shut off sites without a good reason they not only sour relationships with their customers, they can also make themselves potentially liable for damages based on that denial of service.
"It says that if either the Attorney General or the copyright holder "was not able to find" the registrant or owner of the site or "no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States," then they can skip the whole in personam action and jump straight to the in rem action, against the website itself"
It seems that the part requiring the due diligence of the AG in procuring the address, so this option presents a risk if used frivolously. If they fail to do so, the AG face a huge risk of getting the entire order thrown out when challenged for lack of process. Even if the defendant is outside the US the remedies that can be sought under in rem are much more limited than remedies are in personam jurisdiction.
[i["The bill claims it includes "safeguards," but those "safeguards" are that after the court order has been issued and all the third party service providers (payment process, ad networks, ISPs, search engines) have been required to block service to the site, the site can "petition the court to suspend or vacate the order." That seems a bit late in the process, doesn't it? "[/i]
Unless TRO's work differently in federal courts than I remember them, this claim is misleading and false. A plain language reading of the act clearly states that the AG or the plaintiff [b]must[/b] conduct due diligence to locate and notify the defendant upon the [b]commencement[/b] of the action. That is at the beginning. Not before or after the order is issued.
Upon this notification, the defendant has the right to dispute the action in court. The standards for granting a TRO require that there is some uncurable harm that would occur if the order was not put into place until a formal judgment.
If the AG or plaintiff fails to conduct due diligence, the defendant can argue that the order should be thrown out based on their misconduct and so the defendant can get a fair opportunity to defend themselves