### Proposed US Law Triggers Discussion on Internet Censorship and Copyright Enforcement
A recently introduced legislation in the United States, led by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), has sparked intense discussion regarding its possible effects on Internet liberty and copyright regulation. Named the **Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act**, the bill seeks to address online piracy by empowering copyright holders to obtain court orders that would obligate Internet service providers (ISPs) and domain name system (DNS) providers to restrict access to overseas piracy sites. While the proposal has received backing from the entertainment sector, detractors have labeled it a “censorship” initiative with the potential to function as an “Internet kill switch.”
—
### **The Proposal: Website Blocking to Deter Piracy**
The legislation, proposed by Rep. Lofgren, aims to tackle the issues presented by foreign piracy sites that unlawfully distribute copyrighted materials. Lofgren states that the bill has been developed in conjunction with stakeholders from the tech, film, and television domains. The objective, she asserts, is to establish a “focused strategy” that disrupts piracy without compromising the open nature of the Internet.
Under the suggested law, copyright owners would be permitted to request preliminary orders from US District Courts to block access to websites involved in copyright violations. These orders would mandate ISPs and DNS providers to employ “reasonable and technically feasible methods” to avert user access to the infringing sites. The bill explicitly forbids courts from dictating specific technical measures, leaving execution details to the service providers.
### **Exemptions and Range**
The proposed law includes various exemptions to restrict its impact. For instance, it does not pertain to:
– **VPN services** and comparable tools that encrypt and manage user traffic.
– **Encrypted DNS providers** that solely operate with secure protocols.
– **Public Wi-Fi providers**, such as cafés, universities, and airlines.
The bill specifically targets broadband providers with over 100,000 subscribers and DNS providers that earn more than $100 million annually, ensuring smaller entities are not overwhelmed by compliance demands.
—
### **Backing from the Entertainment Sector**
The entertainment sector has consistently pushed for tougher measures against online piracy, and the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act has gained endorsements from key organizations, including the Motion Picture Association (MPA), the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), and the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA).
Charles Rivkin, chairman and CEO of the MPA, commended the bill, noting that similar initiatives have been effectively enacted in over 55 nations, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. According to Rivkin, these measures have curtailed piracy while allowing consumer access to legitimate content.
—
### **Reproach: A “Censorious” Initiative?**
In spite of its proclaimed intentions, the bill has encountered considerable opposition from consumer rights groups and digital freedom advocates. Public Knowledge, a nonprofit organization dedicated to Internet freedom, has labeled the legislation a “censorious site-blocking” initiative that could result in widespread misuse and unforeseeable outcomes.
Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, contended that the bill transfers the enforcement responsibility onto service providers, effectively making them “copyright enforcers.” Rose also cautioned that the global blocking powers authorized by the bill could result in overreach, with courts in one area potentially obstructing access to websites globally.
“This is an expansive framework for censorship,” Rose remarked, adding that site-blocking orders are “extremely powerful tools, prone to misuse.”
The Re:Create Coalition, which advocates for fair copyright measures, echoed these apprehensions, describing the bill as an “Internet kill switch” that bestows excessive authority to copyright owners.
—
### **Legal and Technical Issues**
Critics have also raised concerns regarding the bill’s alignment with the First Amendment and its potential to hinder free expression. While Lofgren has highlighted that the legislation contains protections such as judicial scrutiny and due process, opponents assert that the likelihood of overblocking remains significant.
Technical specialists have indicated the difficulties of enacting site-blocking measures without interfering with legitimate Internet traffic. DNS blocking, for instance, can have unintended effects, such as collateral damage to non-infringing websites utilizing the same infrastructure.
Moreover, ISPs have voiced worries about the practicality of adhering to widespread blocking orders. In earlier legal disputes, ISPs have asserted that harsh enforcement tactics could negatively impact innocent individuals and place an excessive strain on network operators.
—
### **Functionality of the Bill**
The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act delineates a comprehensive process for acquiring blocking orders:
1. **Submitting a Petition**: Copyright holders must submit a petition in US District Court, providing proof that a foreign website is involved in copyright infringement and causing irreparable damage.
2. **Notification**: Petitioners must make attempts to notify the website’s operator and inform service providers that facilitate access to the site.
3. **Court Examination**
