![\"caution\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/caution.jpg\")
After a decade of focusing efforts overseas, the push for pirate site blocking has landed back on American shores.<\/p>\nAfter a decade of focusing efforts overseas, the push for pirate site blocking has landed back on American shores.<\/p>\n
There are currently two bills in the making; the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA<\/a>) introduced by Representative Zoe Lofgren in February, and Representative Darrell Issa\u2019s \u2018American Copyright Protection Act\u2019 (ACPA<\/a>), which tackles the same issue from a different angle. <\/p>\n ACPA has yet to be formally introduced, but a draft of the framework was shared with stakeholders late May, with a request for input. While most of the back and forth takes place behind closed doors, the Re:Create<\/a> Coalition and the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA<\/a>) shared their critical comments publicly.<\/p>\n The Library Copyright Alliance is pleased that libraries will be exempt from the blocking proposal, as they are not categorized as service providers. However, there are still concerns that the bill, as currently drafted, could lead to overblocking. <\/p>\n \u201cLCA remains concerned that ACPA\u2019s no-fault injunction structure could lead to over-blocking that could restrict access to information and thereby harm library users,\u201d LCA writes. <\/p>\n The LCA notes that most cases will likely result in default judgments, as foreign sites typically unresponsive to actions filed in U.S. courts. In addition, service providers are unlikely to oppose orders on behalf of these unknown third parties.<\/p>\n \u201cA service provider\u2019s objective would be to implement the blocking in the most expedient manner possible, regardless of possible over-blocking,\u201d LCA notes. <\/p>\n This predicted lack of scrutiny means that some sites may be classified as foreign piracy sites, even when they fail to meet the statutory definition. <\/p>\n Re:Create also raises overblocking concerns, focusing on the destabilizing impact the measures could have on the broader internet, suggesting that the potential fallout should be taken seriously. <\/p>\n \u201cAdvocates for site-blocking have downplayed the threat of overblocking and pooh-poohed the idea of \u2018breaking the internet,\u2019 saying that site-blocking can be achieved without threatening the integrity of the internet or lawful internet use. However, the latest research suggests site-blocking advocates may be trying to rush their idea into law before the facts can catch up to them.\u201d<\/p>\n Re:Create cites an i2Coalition report which found that overblocking is widespread, especially when restrictions are applied to shared infrastructure like cloud platforms and CDNs. This is considered a potential threat to the internet\u2019s architecture, the digital economy, and fundamental rights.<\/p>\n Both groups mention overblocking in detail, but they also highlight separate issues. Re:Create, for example, notes that it\u2019s not clear that site blocking is needed, questioning research that estimated a significant negative economic impact of online piracy.<\/p>\n \u201cSite-blocking is a solution in search of a problem,\u201d the group writes, citing a rebuttal<\/a> from the Computer & Communications Industry Association\u2019s Research Center, which points out several flaws in a key report<\/a> that estimated $29.2 billion in lost U.S. revenues.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This estimate is biased and based on flawed methodology, resulting in a multi-billion dollar figure that is \u201cwildly out of step with previous studies that had concluded impacts from piracy were much smaller, potentially as low as zero,\u201d Re:Create notes.<\/p>\n The LCA doesn\u2019t mention the alleged damages, nor is it entirely against a site blocking bill. However, to prevent the risk of overblocking due to default judgments, it would like to shift the proposed forum from specific district judges to the International Trade Commission (ITC).<\/p>\n The library association argues that ITC judges already have expertise in intellectual property, and the ITC staff would represent the public interest, helping to prevent over-blocking.<\/p>\n \u201cThe staff\u2019s ongoing involvement would help prevent over-blocking. Significantly, the ITC is equipped to order temporary relief, so it could act quickly to protect the interests of copyright owners,\u201d LCA writes. <\/p>\n The idea of using the ITC as a forum to handle piracy related cases isn\u2019t entirely new. In 2012, Rep. Issa\u2019s proposed the OPEN Act, which would have tasked the Commission with stopping money flows to pirate sites. The bill was an alternative to SOPA and PIPA, but never passed. <\/p>\n The libraries also mention a novelty that, to our knowledge, has never been mentioned in public; a proposed sunsetting clause that is being considered by Rep. Issa.<\/p>\n \u201cDuring one of the roundtables, Chairman Issa mentioned the possibility of the site-blocking legislation sunsetting after a set number of years. We favor sunsetting the legislation after five years,\u201d LCA writes. <\/p>\n A sunsetting clause means that the law will automatically terminate or expire on a specific date unless Congress takes deliberate action to extend it. It is essentially a built-in expiration date for the bill, which ensures a thorough reevaluation of its impact and effectiveness in the future. <\/p>\n The ACPA framework is still in the discussion phase and the initial feedback shows that there may be room for improvement. This is especially true considering that these two responses are just the tip of the iceberg; there are likely others calling for more drastic enforcement too.<\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of the comments shared by Re:Create can be found here (pdf)<\/a> and the Library Copyright Alliance\u2019s submission can be found here (pdf)<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nOverblocking Fears<\/h2>\n
Solution in search of a problem?<\/h2>\n
![\"search](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/searchforaproblem.jpg\")
<\/center><\/p>\nMove Site Blocking to the ITC<\/h2>\n
A Sunsetting Clause?<\/h2>\n