Someone please point out to me the flaw in this guy's logic, because I can't come up with anything:
1. Use Doc's Razor: Don't ascribe to conspiracy what can be ascribed to the desire to sell tin foil. (this is a quotable).
2. "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" (or A is antecedent to B therefore if B then A, and A caused B) is not correct logic. In this case, nut bag asserts that since these companies distributed software which could be used for piracy, that was their intent.
Since that is illogical, there must be a fact to explain it (the 'conspiracy'): To wit, the takeover of the internet.
The fallacy is illustrated by this:
Cars can be used to kill people. Therefore, the auto makers are conspiring to take over vehicle licensing and own all the roads.
The former example is wrong because the software was intended to distribute legal, licensed content not pirated software. Just like cars are intended to be driven safely, within the law: Not to kill people and take over licensing and all roads.
This nut job wants to kill SOPA. Maybe with good reason, maybe not. Doing it because of his "reasoning" would be incorrect, and crazy.