"Despite all of my best efforts, the past year has been dominated by really a bitter war between Silicon Valley and the content industry," Paul Brigner said. "And it’s a shame, because a lot of it has been fueled, I think, by misinformation and exaggeration about what the MPAA and others were trying to accomplish with this legislation."

"We need more than just following the money, and addressing the search results," he later added. "There needs to be some indication that when you try to go to these rogue sites, you shouldn't be there."

The danger of dismissing your opponent's concerns as "misinformation and exaggeration" is that you might start to believe it yourself. If you believe it yourself, you're likely to continue to press your agenda without regard to the objections that are being raised.

On some level you'd think they would clue into the fact that resistance to this has grown, not shrunk, with every single concession that they've made. Their lack of respect for our legitimate concerns leads them to believe that if they just make one more concession everything will be fine, when in fact the very idea that they thought we'd have accepted the previous version is, in and of itself, extremely provocative.

"What we're left with is a very narrow, carefully tailored, narrowly targeted bill that addresses the worst of the worst online thieves, whether it's the Senate or the House bill."

We don't believe anything that you say. Circulate a draft.

On SOPA and PIPA, MPAA and Chamber strike conciliatory note - Tony Romm - POLITICO.com