Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act

Bill Number

H.R. 791

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Commerce

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-01-28: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2025-06-09T19:52:47Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), H.R. 791, aims to strengthen U.S. copyright protection by enabling courts to issue orders that block access to specific foreign websites or online services primarily used for infringing copyrighted works, such as unauthorized streaming or distribution. It targets "rogue" foreign sites that are hard to sue directly due to their location outside the U.S., while protecting legitimate internet access.

Key Provisions

• Petitions for Preliminary Orders: Copyright owners or their exclusive licensees (called "covered persons") can file a petition in a U.S. District Court for a preliminary order against a foreign website or online service. The petition must show:
• Likely infringement of exclusive rights (e.g., reproduction, distribution, public performance, or display under section 106 of the Copyright Act).
• Irreparable harm to the petitioner.
• The site is operated by a foreign person (physically outside the U.S. or location unknown) and is primarily designed, used, or marketed for copyright infringement.
• Efforts to notify the site's operator and relevant U.S. service providers (e.g., via designated agents under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA).
• Court Issuance Criteria: Courts issue the order if the petition includes identifiers (e.g., domain name or IP address), certifications under penalty of perjury, and evidence of diligent investigation. Orders are not issued if infringement has fully stopped without likelihood of resuming. For imminent or ongoing live events (e.g., concerts, sports), expedited or ex parte (without the other side present) proceedings are allowed.
• Blocking Orders: After a preliminary order, petitioners can seek court directives for "service providers" (large broadband internet providers with 100,000+ subscribers and major public DNS providers with $100 million+ revenue) to block user access to the infringing site using reasonable, technically feasible measures. Key rules:
• Blocks must not interfere with non-infringing content, overly burden providers, or harm public interest.
• No specific technical methods mandated (e.g., no forced DNS changes); VPNs (services that encrypt and route traffic to hide user locations) cannot be blocked.
• Orders last up to 12 months (extendable), or shorter for live events (e.g., 48 hours after the event ends).
• Amendments allowed to add providers, domains, or IP addresses if sites evade blocks.
• Implementation and Protections:
• Service providers get immunity from lawsuits related to good-faith compliance, including claims from blocked sites or users.
• Courts review compliance leniently, focusing on reasonableness, not perfection; temporary suspensions allowed for fixes or maintenance.
• Petitioners may reimburse providers' marginal compliance costs (excluding infrastructure or legal fees).
• Orders publicized online (with possible redactions for security), but do not affect DMCA safe harbor protections for providers.
• Definitions: Key terms include "foreign website or online service" (operated by non-U.S. persons, publicly accessible in the U.S.); "live event" (public performances like sports or shows); exclusions for small providers, encrypted DNS, VPNs, and public Wi-Fi spots (e.g., cafes, libraries).
• Effective Date: Takes effect 6 months after enactment.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Adds a new section (502A) to Chapter 5 of title 17, U.S. Code (Copyright Act), creating a targeted judicial process for blocking foreign infringing sites—something not explicitly available under current law, which relies on voluntary takedowns via DMCA notices (section 512) or lawsuits against U.S.-based intermediaries.
• Explicitly preserves DMCA immunities for service providers, ensuring blocks do not trigger liability for transmitting infringing material.
• Introduces expedited processes for live events and perjury penalties for false petitions, enhancing enforcement speed and accountability beyond general copyright remedies like damages or injunctions.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Primarily affects federal courts, increasing their workload for petitions, hearings, and oversight of masters (court-appointed experts for fact-finding). No direct mandates for executive agencies like the Department of Justice.
• On Citizens: U.S. internet users may face blocked access to specific foreign sites offering pirated content (e.g., illegal streams), potentially reducing piracy but raising concerns about over-blocking legitimate material. VPN users remain unaffected, preserving some access options.
• On International Relations: Could lead to tensions with foreign governments if blocks target sites hosted abroad, viewed as extraterritorial enforcement. It promotes U.S. IP interests globally but might prompt retaliatory measures or complaints to international bodies like the World Trade Organization.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Copyright Owners and Licensees: Gain stronger tools to combat foreign piracy, protecting revenue from works like movies, music, and live events.
• Service Providers (Broadband and DNS): Required to implement blocks, with cost recovery and immunity, but face compliance burdens and potential user backlash.
• Foreign Website Operators: Subject to U.S. court orders without direct participation, limiting their ability to reach U.S. audiences if infringing.
• U.S. Internet Users: Indirectly impacted through access restrictions, balancing anti-piracy benefits against free internet navigation.
• Content Platforms and Industries: Entertainment sectors (e.g., film, sports leagues) benefit from reduced unauthorized distribution.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Bolsters copyright enforcement by bridging gaps in jurisdiction over foreign actors, but limits scope to "primarily infringing" sites to avoid broad censorship. Courts' discretion in reviews and public transparency promote due process.
• Constitutional: Potential First Amendment (free speech) challenges if blocks inadvertently restrict non-infringing speech, though narrow targeting and appeal options mitigate this. No direct due process issues for foreign operators, as the law focuses on U.S.-accessible sites.
• Political: Supports intellectual property advocates by addressing "digital piracy havens," but may draw criticism from free internet groups for enabling government-mandated blocks, echoing debates over laws like SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act, which failed in 2012). It reflects a bipartisan push for targeted IP protection without overhauling the DMCA.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18]

Recent Actions

• 2025-01-28: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-01-28: Introduced in House
• 2025-01-28: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act — issued 2025-01-28 — PDF (25 pages)