logo
California Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act To Block Sites Infringing On U.S. Copyrights

California Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act To Block Sites Infringing On U.S. Copyrights

Yahoo29-01-2025
U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Dem-CA) has introduced H.R. 791, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (or FADPA), to prevent foreign-run piracy sites from exploiting loopholes in U.S. law. The Act sets site-blocking laws that require U.S. internet providers to make 'a good faith effort' to disable access to pirate websites.
Lofgren is Ranking Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and a senior member of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet. After working for over a year with the tech, film, and television industries, she said, 'we've arrived at a proposal that has a remedy for copyright infringers located overseas that does not disrupt the free internet except for the infringers.'
More from Deadline
Global Industry Group ACE Announces Shutdown Of Fmovies, Deemed "World's Largest Piracy Ring"
Operators Of Jetflicks, An Illegal Streaming Service With A Catalog Larger Than Netflix, Prime Video And Hulu Put Together, Convicted By Federal Jury
Indonesia Clamps Down On Piracy Of Streamer Vidio's Content On Telegram
Foreign digital piracy, she adds, presents a 'massive and growing threat,' costing American jobs, harming the creative community, and exposing consumers to dangerous security risks. The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act is a targeted approach that focuses on safety and intellectual property, while simultaneously upholding due process, respecting free speech, and ensuring enforcement is narrowly focused.
'Compromise is often found when you sit and hash out policy recommendations with the workers, companies, and users directly involved, and I appreciate the support from the tech and content communities in this effort. I look forward to continuing to work with Chairmen Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan on anti-piracy measures in the near future,' Lofgren said.
Rep. Issa (R-CA) is the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.
Trade groups applauded the bill with the Motion Picture Association noting that intellectual property theft drains at least $30 billion and 230,000 jobs from the U.S. economy each year. It said more than 55 countries including Canada, the UK and Australia have tools in place similar to those proposed by Rep. Lofgren that have successfully reduced piracy's harms while protecting consumer access to legal content.
'The MPA thanks Rep. Lofgren for introducing FADPA and for her commitment to work with Chairman Issa to enact legislation this Congress to ensure America's creators have effective enforcement tools to combat offshore piracy targeting the U.S. market,' said MPA chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin.
Jean Prewitt, president and CEO of the Independent Film & Television Alliance, said foreign copyright piracy is also a grave problem for independent film producers. 'Site blocking legislation is badly needed to protect U.S. creators from industrial-strength theft of their films and programs by foreign bad actors, who are outside the reach of U.S. legal jurisdiction.'
'We also look forward to working with … Chair Darrell Issa as he leads a bi -partisan effort, working with Rep. Lofgren and other members to craft a legislative solution to deal with foreign copyright piracy and protect our industry and U.S. economic productivity,' she said.
The American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), the Authors Guild, 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), and leading technology policy think tanks, ITIF, also backed the bill.
Background on the issue Lofgren's office provided, citing research, said that in 2019, U.S.-produced television episodes and movies were illegally streamed or downloaded, respectively, 126.7 billion and 26.6 billion times. By 2022, global visits to movie and TV piracy sites reached 191.8 billion, costing the U.S. economy $29.2 billion annually and threatening more than 230,000 American jobs in entertainment, technology, and small businesses.
Today, it said, some illegal foreign online pirate sites are bigger than some of the biggest legit U.S. streaming services. One piracy site hit 364 million visits in October of 2024, which was larger than Disney+ viewership in that same month. Live sports are also a prime target, with piracy draining $28 billion annually from the global sports industry.
'Past U.S. efforts to curb piracy failed because they lacked due process, threatened free speech, and provided overly-broad enforcement powers that risked harming legitimate websites and the open internet,' the announcement said.
That's certainly what some felt about Obama-era legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), which lawmakers quickly walked back after facing a really furious onslaught by the U.S. tech industry.
Today is the first time legislators have really dared to touched the issue of digital piracy since then.
'A decade ago, I was at the center of the successful effort to prevent the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) from becoming law. That was not because I support copyright infringement, but because I support the open internet. Lofgren said. She said the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act takes a better approach.
It protects service providers from legal liability. ISPs, DNS providers, and other intermediaries are shielded from lawsuits 'as long as they comply in good faith' with court-ordered blocking measures. The good faith element could make enforcement messy but it's a start.
As per the famous (or infamous) Section 230 of Telecommunications Act of the late 1990s, service providers are not responsible for content on their platforms, with very few exceptions. A 2018 law under the Trump Administration did legally prohibit sex trafficking sites. Providers tend to cry slippery slope and the end of free speech at any carve-out to their Section 230 freedom, which courts have mostly respected.
Other highlights of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act:
It only targets large-scale, foreign-run piracy sites.
It respects First Amendment rights. Every blocking order must go through a U.S. court, requiring clear evidence, due process, and judicial oversight to ensure fair enforcement and prevent censorship. Courts must first verify that any site-blocking order does not interfere with access to lawful material before issuing an order.
It allows for feasible tech solutions. Unlike past proposals, the bill does not mandate specific technical measures for blocking. Instead, it allows service providers to determine the best, least intrusive methods to comply with court orders.
It provides a narrowly-tailored blocking mechanism limited to piracy sites that exist solely to infringe copyrights.
Best of Deadline
How to Watch The 67th Annual Grammy Awards Online And With Cable
2025 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Oscars, Spirits, Grammys, Tonys, Guilds & More
The 2025 Oscars: Everything We Know So Far About The Nominations, Ceremony, Date & Host
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How the New Texas Map Changes the Outlook for Control of the House
How the New Texas Map Changes the Outlook for Control of the House

New York Times

time31 minutes ago

  • New York Times

How the New Texas Map Changes the Outlook for Control of the House

So far this election cycle, most analysts have assumed that Democrats will win the House next November. No, it's not a guarantee. But the party out of the White House usually does well in midterms, and Democrats need a mere three seats to retake the chamber. Over the last few weeks, this reasonable assumption has started to get more complicated. It turns out that Democrats might need to flip more than three seats, as President Trump is pushing red states to undertake a rare mid-decade redistricting effort to shore up the slender Republican House majority. On Wednesday, Republicans in Texas unveiled the first of these efforts: a new map that could flip as many as five seats from blue to red. It's still too early to say what might happen beyond Texas. Maybe other Republican states will join; maybe Democrats will retaliate. Obviously, a wider redistricting war could have far greater implications, to say nothing of whether it is healthy for the country. But on its own, while the Texas map makes the Democrats' path to the House harder, it doesn't necessarily make it hard. They would still be favored to win the House if the election were held today on the new map, even though they don't hold a very large lead in the polls. The current national congressional map remains more or less balanced by the usual measures of partisan fairness. Proposed House Map Is More Republican, but Still Less Than in Past Even with Texas' changes, Republicans have just a small advantage in the way House districts lean, measured by whether each district supported the Republican presidential candidate by a larger margin than the national popular vote in the prior election. Republican advantage in how districts lean +23 districts +23 +20 +20 +18 +11 +13 +13 +10 +7 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2026 Republican advantage in how districts lean +23 districts +23 +20 +20 +18 +11 +13 +13 +10 +7 1992 2000 2008 2016 2026 Sources: POLIDATA; Daily Kos Elections; Voting and Election Science Team; PlanScore; The Downballot By The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them
Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them

New York Post

time8 hours ago

  • New York Post

Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them

Kamala Harris' visit Thursday to Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show' was a fine reminder of why both of them are failures. Mind you, this marked Harris' eighth Late Show appearance — one more illustration of the futility of doing the same thing over and over and somehow expecting different results. What made her think this would help promote her new book? Advertisement The marquee moment was her inability to say who's leading the Democratic Party just now — which was actually simple honesty, since neither Dems nor Republicans have clear leaders these days unless it's a sitting president. But she couldn't explain that simple truth, nor did Colbert show any sign of getting it as he pushed for an answer. Her incoherence was part of another classic Kam performance, full of word salads and non-answers. Advertisement So why did Colbert even bring her on a supposed comedy show? Because he's followed most of the late-night crew down the 'we need to promote liberal politics' toilet, of course — hosting 176 Dem politicians and one Republican since 2022, and hewing one side of the aisle every minute in between. That formula earned him cancellation and may well take out all his peers. It's another puzzle of modern life that so much of the entertainment industry somehow forgot that sanctimoniousness (political or otherwise) is the enemy of humor.

The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case
The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case

Politico

time8 hours ago

  • Politico

The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case

The order came in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, which contains two majority-Black districts out of the state's six House seats. The court heard arguments in the case in March and had been expected to rule by June. But on June 27, the justices punted the case into their next term and ordered that it be reargued. Now, Friday's order loosely sketches the terrain on which the justices want further arguments: the claim that the longstanding practice of drawing majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Acts may be unconstitutional because of its focus on race in drawing district lines. The voters challenging Louisiana's map had already advanced that constitutional claim in the case, but the justices' call for further briefing on the issue suggests they want to consider the claim more fully. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark law passed during the civil rights era, generally prohibits race-based discrimination in voting laws and practices. In redistricting, the law is used to protect against racial gerrymandering that would unfairly dilute the voting power of racial and ethnic minority voters. States across the country routinely seek to comply with Section 2 by drawing congressional districts where minority voters can elect their chosen candidates. Louisiana's previous map contained only one majority-Black district, even though Black residents make up about a third of the state's population. After a court struck down that map for likely violating the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the power of Black voters, the state's Republican-controlled legislature drew the new map with two majority-Black districts. A group of voters — who self-identified as non-Black — challenged the new map. That's the case now before the Supreme Court. A ruling overturning the current map could result in Republicans picking up an additional congressional seat in Louisiana. The state's two majority-Black districts are both represented by Democrats, while the other four districts are represented by Republicans.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store