I think very few people have a problem with that. The only problem is that these kinds of laws go a lot further than that.
I was watching "Up with Chris Hayes" one weekend morning and he was talking about this. He showed a clip from a homemade video of a birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese. Everybody was singing "Happy Birthday" and the mascot was there miming along.
Now, the family could put this video up on YouTube to let their family watch and see what the birthday party was like. But if they did, they would be in violation of copyright. After all, the song "Happy Birthday" is still copyrighted and the estate of the copyright holders guard it fiercely. Also, the image of the mascot of Chuck E. Cheese is intellectual property of the corporation who owns that franchise.
So, because of a home video of people singing "Happy Birthday" at Chuck E. Cheese's, the holders of those copyrights could ask the federal government to shut down YouTube.
Also, because someone could search for that video on Google, the federal government would be empowered to shut down that website because it facilitated in infringement of copyright by allowing it to be searchable.
And if someone posted a link to that homemade video here on the Debate Politics forum the federal government could shut this forum down for disseminating copyrighted material.
This is the problem opponents have with SOPA, PIPA, and similar laws. It is so heavy handed and it could lead to the shutdown of the internet.
Also, it won't deal with the issues of these corporations - which is to make a profit off of their intellectual properties.
This is why opponents are so much against these laws - they are far too draconian against rather innocent people and it doesn't do what proponents want the laws to do.
And that's not even getting into the bribery and corruption that these big media companies are paying our Congressmen and Senators off to get these laws passed.