Anyways, I believe you're referring to this section: 'Does CISPA do enough to prevent abuse of the law for copyright enforcement?'
Here's the relevant text from that section:
CISPA’s definition of "cyber threat information" includes information directly pertaining to a threat to "confidentiality." But what does confidentiality mean? The definition encompasses measures designed for preserving "authorized restrictions on access," including means for protecting "proprietary information." "Proprietary information" is not defined, and could be read to include copyrighted information. For example, one type of restriction on access that is designed to protect proprietary information is digital rights management (DRM).
The problem here is the vagueness of the language. As others as have pointed out, the concern is not so much about intent of the language, but abuse of the vagueness to strongly serve the interests' of copyright holders over the general public.
Additionally, published content isn't confidential.
Unless you happen to increment a public-facing URL in a numeric fashion...
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/f...