Andrew misrepresents the truth again.
What Andrew has left out of this article is the fine detail of what SOPA and PIPA would actually do to the browsing experience of every user. Andrew is a fundamentally conservative writer and social contrarian, but he only presents half of the issue.
The Key problem with SOPA and PIPA was that they not only eliminated safe harbor protection for ISP's and web sites, they actually reverse the burden of proof requiring anyone who posts content to the internet, be it a youtube video, a narrative, a commentary or even a link to a website ensure that none of it breaches anyone else's copyright or IP. The legislation gave media corporations the right to pursue ISP's, websites, users, and even to edit or change DNS records without warrant on the say so of the media companies.
Since the people who generate most of the content on the web are not Fox or Yahoo, its private citizens, we are the ones getting policed. Now, here is the real effect of SOPA it costs money to police user content, if it costs even as much as 5c a post that can be enough to destroy a website's profitability especially if their DNS records have been changed.
SOPA and PIPA handed over control of content production and even the links to that content, to a few media corporations who could make a claim without warrant that anything posted or linked to on a site infringed their copyright. It made websites and ISP's responsible for the content posted by their users even though they cant control their users anymore than I can control Andrew's inability to present all the information.
SOPA and PIPA are not about paying for content they say nothing about freetards, they are pieces of legislation that deal with the control of content on the net. They handed control of content policing to the media corporations whose very existence is challenged by the news/media/content that s posted and/or produced by private citizens.