[tzs]

Your second left parenthesis belongs one line higher. A more clear way to read it is to write out four copies of it, and then in the first copy delete or clauses 2, 3, and 4. In the second copy delete or clauses 1, 3, and 4, and so on. That gives a separate complete sentence for each of the four ways you can run afoul of that section:

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily
    designed for use in offering goods or services in a manner
    that engages in, enables, or facilitates...

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is operated for
    the purpose of offering goods or services in a manner that
    engages in, enables, or facilitates...

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site has only
    limited purpose or use other than offering goods or services
    in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates...

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is marketed by
    its operator or another acting in concert with that operator
    for use in offering goods or services in a manner that
    engages in, enables, or facilitates...

YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing. It fails to fall under the second because it is not operated for those purposes. It fails to fall under the third because although it does get used for the prohibit activities, it has substantial legitimate use. It fails to fall under the fourth because Google does not market it as an infringing tool--indeed, they discourage infringement.

The section that YouTube (and Reddit, and most other legitimate sites with user content) are in danger of running afoul of is the section that says a US-directed site is a site dedicated to the theft of US property if it:

    is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a
    high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out
    acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17,
    United States Code

Some think this will requires the sites to put a lot of effort into actively monitoring user generated content and taking down things that might be illegal, as opposed to current law where they have only have to deal with things specifically brought to their notice via a DMCA notification. The section is sufficiently unclear that that is a reasonable reading of it.

[zmmmmm]

> YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing

Why does everyone keep leaving out the crucial "in a manner" words? Read it carefully with emphasis on those words:

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily
    designed for use in offering goods or services 
    IN A MANNER that engages in, enables, or facilitates...

It doesn't matter what the site is primarily designed to do, if it executes that purpose in a manner that facilitates bad things then it falls under the definition.

[tzs]

"In a manner that" modifies "offering goods or services". The structure of this is:

    The site is illegal if it is primarily designed for use in X

where X is "offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates...".

[zmmmmm]

I agree you can read it that way, but it doesn't change much to me. Any site that accepts user content as its main function still has a primary purpose that enables / facilitates the infringement.

[sunir]

A theoretical parsing of the sentence does not matter. When tested in court, a reasonable reading of the law would not find YouTube in violation. The clear intention of the Act is to burn down sites whose primary purpose is theft of U.S. property, like The Pirate Bay.

The problem is that is YouTube today. A lot of people forget that YouTube built its initial audience by "primarily" being flooded with pirated anime clips. Even if YouTube did not want to be a haven of copyright infringement, it users did. It would be easily arguable that YouTube would violate the law when it first started.

[meric]

"a reasonable reading of the law". Anyone relying on this when thinking about new laws deserves to have their constitutional rights slowly eroded year by year. Take Hong Kong as an example. Originally the idea universal suffrage would be applied in 2007. However due to less than "reasonable" readings of the law, the government now claims universal suffrage will apply in 2017. As of 2012 the government has performed zero actions in preparation for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Hong_Kong#Universal...

The Hong Kong basic law stipulates the ultimate goal is universal suffrage, but every action until now by the government indicates it desires the delaying of this indefinitely.

Hong Kong was promised 50 years of autonomy, but after 10 years interference from the Chinese government has only increased. Why is the biggest and most funded political party in Hong Kong backed by the Chinese government?

See, you can only expect "a reasonable reading of the law" in reasonable times. When times are unreasonable the laws must be bullet-proof to be able to protect citizens.

When the average bill blows out to a thousand pages, it is in no way "bullet-proof".

[ajuc]

> "a reasonable reading of the law". Anyone relying on this when thinking about new laws deserves to have their constitutional rights slowly eroded year by year.

Let me add another historical example of reasonable reading of law going awry - in renaissance and later Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth there was noble democracy - all nobles had equal voting rights (that was +- 10% of country population). They elected kings, decided country matters during parlament sessions, etc.

There was instituion of "liberum veto" - it was thought to be consequence of all nobles being equal in voting rights - it meant that every nobleman could stop any decision made by parliament, just by saing "liberum veto".

For many centuries it was not as stupid, as it sounds, because it was common understanding, that this person could be then challanged to duel by anybody not agreeing with him (so people weren't overusing it), and that this veto only applies to one matter currently discussed, not everything that was decided during given session.

But starting in 1652 understanding of this law changed to "liberum veto means any nobleman can cancel all decisions made during parlament session". And people started escaping after screaming "liberum veto".

Of course it was abused by foreign countries - you just have to bribe one nobleman out of 10% of country population to block any decision (like decision to enlarge army). Slightly more than century later Commonwealth disappeared.

[d0mine]

Even if you're right and SOPA doesn't apply to youtube (that I doubt) The most important take away message is that it doesn't matter if the site is illegal It is sufficient that some copyright-holder thinks it is illegal.

Of cause large corporations will make deals behind the scene or battle in court and their sites will continue to operate. It is similar to software patent situation.

Effectively SOPA is a tool to shutdown any site with a user-generated content at any time. Companies can use it to crush their competitors; government -- to stifle political dissent.

[CamperBob]

YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing

In whose opinion? Viacom's?