From the article ...
He explains how the new law would expand copyright violations from reproducing and distributing to performing
Simply performing would be a copyright violation? Like, a bar-band doing god-awful covers of classic rock could be busted for copyright violation, and so could the bar owner for sponsoring it?
Or does this apply only to the internet?
I haven't read through this whole thing so I'm not sure what he's saying, but as stated that would not really be an expansion of copyright laws. If a band performs someone else's songs in a paid concert, they're already supposed to pay the songwriter royalties. (As a practical matter it's pretty much on the honor system except when you get to hugely profitable bands).
These kinds of alarmist articles frustrate me. The writer ends his tirade with "It will also be used by the political establishment to eliminate the internet activity – primarily in the form of alternative media – of those who oppose what is shaping up to be a totalitarian state." A state in which it's illegal to post the latest Lady Gaga single online, but still perfectly legal to make or buy it, is a totalitarian state? Maybe being a little heavy handed there?
It's already illegal to post copyrighted material on YouTube. People do it all the time and risk nothing more than the revocation of their YouTube account. We couldn't put every copyright violator in jail, and if this bill passes it won't change a thing about the status quo.