The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act allows copyright holders to seek court orders to block access to foreign websites or online services that are found to be infringing on their copyrights. These orders would require broadband providers and domain name resolution services to block access to these sites for users in the U.S.
Zoe Lofgren
Representative
CA-18
The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) allows copyright holders to seek court orders to block access to foreign websites or online services that are found to be infringing on their copyrights. To obtain a blocking order, copyright owners must demonstrate that the foreign website is primarily designed for copyright infringement and that blocking access will not interfere with non-infringing material, burden service providers, or harm public interest. Service providers who comply with the court orders are protected from liability. The blocking order must be followed within 15-20 days and expires after 12 months, unless extended.
Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act: US Copyright Owners Can Now Block Foreign Websites
The "Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act" (FADPA) greenlights U.S. copyright holders to get court orders forcing internet service providers to block access to foreign websites accused of copyright infringement. This means if a movie studio or music label believes a website outside the U.S. is illegally sharing their content, they can go to court and potentially get that site blocked for American users.
Fast Track to Blocking
The bill lays out a process where copyright owners can quickly obtain a "preliminary order" against a foreign website. They'll need to show the site is "primarily designed" for copyright infringement (a pretty broad term), provide the site's IP address or domain name, and prove they've tried to contact the site operator and its service providers. Notably, if it involves a "live event" like a sports broadcast or concert, the court can issue this order without prior notice to the website. A site operator has 30 days to contest this initial order (Sec. 2).
Making Blocks Happen
Once that preliminary order is in place, copyright owners can request a "blocking order." This is where things get real for everyday internet users. This order forces "service providers" – think big broadband companies and certain domain name services with over $100 million in annual revenue – to block their customers from accessing the targeted website. The court is supposed to weigh whether this blocking will mess with access to legitimate, non-infringing content or overly burden the service provider. But if the order goes through, providers have 15-20 days to comply (or sooner for live events). These blocking orders last for 12 months, unless renewed, although blocks related to live events expire 48 hours after the event ends (Sec. 2).
Real-World Ripple Effects
Imagine you regularly visit a foreign website for news, research, or even just to watch videos. If that site gets flagged under FADPA – even if it's a mistake or an overreach – you could suddenly find it inaccessible. The bill does allow website operators to challenge blocking orders if their non-infringing site gets caught in the crossfire (Sec. 2). Service providers also have some liability protection when complying with these orders, which might make them more willing to block broadly to avoid legal trouble (Sec. 2). The vagueness around what counts as a site "primarily designed for copyright infringement" is another red flag. It could create a chilling effect, where legitimate sites are blocked simply because they host some user-uploaded content that might infringe copyright.
Challenges and Long-Term Concerns
While FADPA aims to protect copyright holders, the potential for unintended consequences is significant. The speed of the process, especially for live events, raises due process concerns. And while the bill intends to target foreign sites, the broad definitions and blocking mechanisms could impact smaller websites and services that rely on international audiences. The bill also explicitly states that complying with a blocking order doesn't make a service provider liable for copyright infringement, and it doesn't remove existing liability protections they might have under Section 512(a) of copyright law (Sec. 2). This further insulates service providers while potentially limiting access for users.