Writing complaints to LiveJournal and other blog sites (which are used for distribution and providing links to pirated versions) were useless and completely ignored.

If you sent them a DMCA takedown, and it was really ignored, then they were breaking the law. Why didn't you take further action?

There is no argument for a new law here.

But what are you suggesting would happen regarding Livejournal with SOPA, with the situation you describe - that wouldn't have been possible with the DMCA?

Livejournal is a blogging service used by millions (including myself), so I do hope you're not suggesting it should be blocked - that's exactly the sort of worry that makes me oppose SOPA. Do you think it's acceptable for Livejournal to be put out of business, and their employees to be out of a job?

Right now in many countries they can put anyone in jail for posting unpopular opinions about politicians on blogs and so on, but when they want to stop pirates, everyone screams of censorship. A$$holes always complain...[/quote]Er, I think people against SOPA are likely to be against putting people in jail for posting unpopular opinions. Please stop making up straw men.

I do believe that hosting providers and ISP should be responsible of removing pirated content both by request and by monitoring the content themselves because right now once you find a web site with a pirated version of your game, there is practically nothing you can do: they always reply that posting links to pirated version is okay and no law is violated there.
[/quote]
The first and second parts of this argument do not follow. Why should ISPs and hosting providers be responsible for what users do? Why not the electricity companies too?

Writing complaints to LiveJournal and other blog sites (which are used for distribution and providing links to pirated versions) were useless and completely ignored.
[/quote]
What constitutes a "complaint" here? Were you sending DMCA take-down requests? Were you consulting with a lawyer?

I think OPEN is a joke, another bureaucratic attempt where only those with huge connections, influence and power will be able to do something. The rest of us will still be helpless against multimillionaire piracy industry.
[/quote]
The thing about legislation is, you have to think about it long term. It isn't just about the new powers - it is about the new balance that is created when everyone has tested the new powers, and either accepted the new limitations or found workarounds.

My understanding is that the core idea of OPEN is to cut off finance from the pirates. Let us imagine a world where this strategy proves successful, and is re-deployed around the world. Dismantling the income of the big piracy players would be presumably the first steps of the big content owners.

This would mean there wouldn't be big pirate sites with advantageous positions on search engines. The chances of your site, and reviews of your game, being the top results on Google would increase dramatically. From your perspective, your rankings would increase with no action taken on your behalf.

The result would probably not be the eradication of piracy. Piracy would probably move to private invite only networks, and ad-hoc social sharing. It would mean that random users would find it more difficult to obtain illegitimate copies of your program. There would be less opportunistic piracy. The kind of people who would be dedicated enough to work that much harder to pirate content, you're going to have difficulty ever converting them, I think.

As for the ad-hoc social sharing, maximising the value of word-of-mouth is an important part of marketing for those on a budget. You'd better understand how to turn this to your advantage if you want to succeed, regardless of piracy.

Now, this was purely hypothetical. Maybe it would not be successful. But this is how you must think about the legislation. Not just as the current status quo but with new legal powers, but as a new dynamic. The main point is, the mere existence of the powers, even if you do not use them, could cause a radical shift in the market.

Right now in many countries they can put anyone in jail for posting unpopular opinions about politicians on blogs and so on, but when they want to stop pirates, everyone screams of censorship.
[/quote]
Perhaps this is because there are other approaches that may remedy the situation which might not have such onerous implications for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Perhaps because the rationale for moving the threat of revenue reduction from those responsible for the enforcement of copyright, the content owner, to third parties is dubious.

Again, think not of the powers, but the new balance. Yes, one side effect of this new balance might again be the dismantling of the big piracy aggregation sites. Still, such steps would not remove private piracy networks. Think Tor hidden services as another route.

You will have many companies abusing copyright to try knock out competitors.

Finally, imagine the cost to businesses that have large amounts of user generated content. You might be looking enviously at big ISPs and big search engines, but there are plenty of smaller players too (particularly given PIPSISOAP's broad definition of "search engine"). While the bigger companies might be able to absorb such costs, the additional liability and technical costs of implementing the required provisions could be too much for many companies.

My understanding is that were you to host a forum on your site, it could be considered a "search engine" under the definitions in the POPSIPSOFACTO. Gamedev would also be considered a search engine. This is particularly bad considering that these companies that would suffer are not responsible for the behaviour you seek to police.

Again, this is hypothetical. Unfortunately, there is relatively little data in this area, and the data that exists is frequently biased.