During the first half of 2022, U.S. Senator Thom Tillis was working on a proposal to put forward in a new pirate site blocking bill.
The text of the No-Fault Copyright Remedy Act (NFCRA) was shared among stakeholders but wasn’t announced to the public.
A decade had passed since the first attempt to introduce site-blocking legislation backfired in 2012. For NFCRA, copyright holders and Internet service providers were brought on board early with the aim of negotiating a mutually agreed text.
That hoped-for agreement never came. Rightsholders and ISPs submitted proposed amendments that would take the bill in different directions, widening the gap instead of closing it.
After the failed attempt to make progress behind closed doors, things went quiet. However, rightsholders’ calls for site-blocking legislation only intensified, and this summer Senator Tillis officially introduced the Block BEARD Bill.
The Block BEARD Bill ‘Evolution’
The Block BEARD Act of 2025 is a bipartisan effort supported by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), as well as Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA). The latest version still includes sentences from the early draft circulated three years ago, but there are substantial changes too.
A key difference is that the Block BEARD proposal allows for dynamic blocking. It specifically gives courts the authority to amend existing orders with new domain names or IP addresses, if a site uses them to circumvent blocking efforts.
The latest bill also proposes a significant reduction in the time allowed to implement blocking measures; just 15 days and for live events “as soon as practicable”. In the NFCRA draft, service providers would’ve been given a minimum of 30 days to act, with no special carve-outs.
The good news for some service providers is that Block BEARD doesn’t apply to them all. Those with fewer than 50,000 subscribers are explicitly excluded, and the same applies to venues such as coffee shops, libraries, and universities that offer internet access to visitors.
Meanwhile, the operators of alleged foreign pirate sites have the right to appear in court to prevent a blocking order from being issued. That safeguard wasn’t included in the bill’s predecessor.
| Feature | NFCRA (2022) | Block BEARD Act (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Service Provider Definition | A broad definition that includes providers of broadband internet access service and DNS resolvers. | A more specific definition that excludes broadband providers with fewer than 50,000 subscribers and premises like coffee shops and libraries. |
| Criteria for Court Order | The site’s primary purpose or commercially significant use is copyright infringement. | Adds an additional criterion that the site is “intentionally marketed to promote infringement” to its primary purpose test. |
| Operator’s Contest Rights | Allows the operator to appear before the court and contest the order. | The order will not be issued if the operator appears, submits to the court’s jurisdiction, and posts a bond to ensure compliance. |
| Implementation Deadline | Specifies a minimum of 30 days for service providers to implement the order. | Shortens the minimum time to 15 days, with an “as soon as practicable” provision for live events. |
| Order Duration & Extension | Provides that an order will expire 1 year after it is served, subject to extension. | Provides that an order will expire 1 year after it is served, subject to a 1-year extension. Allows for amending the order for sites that use circumvention techniques. |
To what degree stakeholders were involved in the drafting process of the latest text is not known to us. It’s clear that not all parties who were previously involved were brought back to the table, but previous comments by Senator Coons suggested that ISPs and rightsholders were involved.
In any case, the process and history show that the latest proposal is far from new. It’s the result of a multi-year effort that took place outside the public eye.
More Blocking Bills in the Works
Block-BEARD is not the only site-blocking proposal currently on the table in the United States. Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), which proposes a similar blocking regime, but one that specifically excludes DNS resolvers.
At the same time, Representative Darrell Issa is working on yet another site-blocking bill, the ‘American Copyright Protection Act’ (ACPA), which tackles the same issue from a different angle by appointing judges for blocking cases. This version is yet to be formally introduced.
If site-blocking efforts move forward, the eventual law must pass both the House and the Senate. This means that a combination of these proposals may ultimately lead to the final blocking legislation, if it gets that far.
Opposition Treads Carefully
Over the past several weeks, many rightsholder groups have responded positively to the proposals, as expected. Interestingly, however, there hasn’t been much response from residential ISPs or the many companies and organizations that previously spoke out against similar legislation.
The Re:Create coalition, which promotes a free and open Internet on behalf of members including the EFF, Creative Commons, and the Consumer Technology Association, has been most outspoken in opposition.
“Despite a clever acronym that distracts from the truth, the Block BEARD Act is a new name for a decades-old attempt by Big Content to control the internet through site-blocking,” Executive Director Brandon Butler commented.
“The Block BEARD Act would legalize a dangerous mechanism for content trolls to request the take down of legitimate content because of an alleged piracy claim, putting Americans’ free speech rights into the hands of a powerful few.”
Most large Internet services have remained quiet, however. While we can only speculate on their reasons, they may prefer diplomacy over a major SOPA-style pushback.
The online and political landscape has changed dramatically over the past thirteen years. And with site-blocking being broadly implemented over the world, stopping multiple legislative proposals in the United States is not going to be easy.
American companies such as Google and Cloudflare already implement blocking measures in other jurisdictions, so if the U.S. proposals move forward, they would likely prefer to exert their influence, rather than publicly berating the efforts.
Concerns Over Collateral Damage
The Internet Infrastructure Coalition (i2Coalition) is keeping a close eye on developments. The organization represents members including Cloudflare, Google, Amazon Web Services, and several large VPN providers, all of which could be impacted by the blocking plans.
Speaking with TorrentFreak, Executive Director Christian Dawson notes that combating illegal activity is important, but he urges caution over the risk of causing collateral damage.
“Blocking at the infrastructure level is a blunt instrument that too often breaks the open Internet in the process,” Dawson says.
“While we share the goal of addressing illegal activity, the Block BEARD Act risks causing collateral damage to lawful services and undermining the security and reliability of the networks we all depend on.”
As the legislative process moves forward, we can expect more commentary and advocacy from various stakeholders. However, a global blackout of the Internet and massive worldwide protests are not on the cards.
From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.
Powered by WPeMatico
