Website blocking Democrat teams up with movie industry to propose website-blocking law Proposed US law slammed as "censorious" and an "Internet kill switch." Jon Brodkin Jan 29, 2025 5:45 pm | 43 Credit: Getty Images | Yuichiro Chino Credit: Getty Images | Yuichiro Chino Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreUS Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) today proposed a law that would let copyright owners obtain court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to foreign piracy websites. The bill would also force DNS providers to block sites.Lofgren said in a press release that she "work[ed] for over a year with the tech, film, and television industries" on "a proposal that has a remedy for copyright infringers located overseas that does not disrupt the free Internet except for the infringers." Lofgren said she plans to work with Republican leaders to enact the bill.Lofgren's press release includes a quote from Charles Rivkin, chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association (MPA). As we've previously written, the MPA has been urging Congress to pass a site-blocking law."More than 55 nations around the world, including democracies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, have put in place tools similar to those proposed by Rep. Lofgren, and they have successfully reduced piracy's harms while protecting consumer access to legal content," Rivkin was quoted as saying in Lofgren's press release today.Lofgren is the ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and a member of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet.Bill called censorious site-blocking measureAlthough Lofgren said her proposed Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act "preserves the open Internet," consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge described the bill as a "censorious site-blocking" measure "that turns broadband providers into copyright police at Americans' expense.""Rather than attacking the problem at its sourcebringing the people running overseas piracy websites to courtCongress and its allies in the entertainment industry has decided to build out a sweeping infrastructure for censorship," Public Knowledge Senior Policy Counsel Meredith Rose said. "Site-blocking orders force any service provider, from residential broadband providers to global DNS resolvers, to disrupt traffic from targeted websites accused of copyright infringement. More importantly, applying blocking orders to global DNS resolvers results in global blocks. This means that one court can cut off access to a website globally, based on one individual's filing and an expedited procedure. Blocking orders are incredibly powerful weapons, ripe for abuse, and we've seen the messy consequences of them being implemented in other countries."The Re:Create Coalition, which advocates for "balanced copyright" laws, said that Lofgren's bill "would give Big Content the Internet kill switch it has sought for decades."Lofgren's bill would impose site-blocking requirements on broadband providers with at least 100,000 subscribers and providers of public domain name resolution services with annual revenue of over $100 million. The bill has exemptions for VPN services and "similar services that encrypt and route user traffic through intermediary servers"; DNS providers that offer service "exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols"; and operators of premises that provide Internet access, like coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and universities.Lofgren released a summary of the bill explaining how copyright owners can obtain blocking orders. "A copyright owner or exclusive licensee may file a petition in US District Court to obtain a preliminary order against a foreign website or online service engaging in copyright infringement," the summary said.For non-live content, the petition must show that "transmission of a work through a foreign website likely infringes exclusive rights under Section 106 [of US law] and is causing irreparable harm." For live events, a petition must show that "an imminent or ongoing unauthorized transmission of a live event is likely to infringe, and will cause irreparable harm."Blocking ordersThe proposed law says that after a preliminary order is issued, copyright owners would be able to obtain orders directing service providers "to take reasonable and technically feasible measures to prevent users of the service provided by the service provider from accessing the foreign website or online service identified in the order." Judges would not be permitted to "prescribe any specific technical measures" for blocking and may not require any action that would prevent Internet users from using virtual private networks.Lofgren's summary said a court could issue a preliminary order if the following requirements are met:The foreign website or online service is identified by domain name, IP address, or similar identifier.The petitioner has attempted to serve notice to the website's operator.The petitioner has notified service providers that facilitate access to the infringing website.The operator is outside the US or cannot be determined to be within the USThe website is primarily designed for infringement, has no commercially significant purpose other than infringement, or is intentionally marketed for infringing use.The petitioner has attested under penalty of perjury to the accuracy of its claims and has a substantial interest in enforcing its rights.The operator of a foreign website or online service would have 30 days to appear in court and contest a preliminary order.Lofgren: Bill respects First AmendmentLofgren argues that foreign piracy websites "present a massive and growing threatcosting American jobs, harming the creative community, and exposing consumers to dangerous security risks." She says her bill "is a smart, targeted approach that focuses on safety and intellectual property, while simultaneously upholding due process, respecting free speech, and ensuring enforcement is narrowly focused on the actual problem at hand."In addition to the MPA, Lofgren's office said the bill also has support from the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), the Authors Guild, the Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the Copyright Alliance, and the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA).Lofgren's press release argues that the bill respects the First Amendment because "every blocking order must go through a US court, requiring clear evidence, due process, and judicial oversight to ensure fair enforcement and prevent censorship." By targeting only foreign piracy sites, it "ensures that lawful US platforms, mixed-use sites, and independent creators remain unaffected," the press release said.Public Knowledge said the bill would give copyright holders too much power. "The entertainment industry already has unprecedented power to control Americans' access to the Internet; they have the legal authority to force Internet service providers to disconnect subscribers based on mere accusations of copyright infringement," Rose said.Rose was referring to lawsuits filed by copyright holders alleging that ISPs haven't adequately fought piracy on their networks and failed to terminate repeat infringers. ISPs have fought the lawsuits, telling the Supreme Court that they shouldn't have to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks. ISPs also say that the mass terminations of Internet users demanded by record labels would hurt people "who did not infringe and may have no connection to the infringer."Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 43 Comments