Overview
Title
To amend title 17, United States Code, to provide for blocking orders relating to specifically identified infringing foreign websites or online services, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
This bill is about stopping websites from other countries from showing or sharing things like movies or music without permission. It lets courts tell internet companies to block those bad websites, so people can't go there and watch or listen for free.
Summary AI
The bill H. R. 791 aims to change United States copyright law to help stop copyright infringement from foreign websites. It proposes to allow U.S. courts to issue blocking orders against foreign websites that specifically infringe on copyrights by distributing or streaming live performances illegally. These orders would direct internet service providers to prevent access to such websites, while ensuring that legitimate websites aren't unduly blocked and maintaining transparency and fairness throughout the process. The bill also provides definitions and conditions for implementing blocking orders effectively.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed legislation, known as the "Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act" or "FADPA," aims to combat digital piracy by targeting foreign websites or online services that engage in copyright infringement. The bill authorizes U.S. courts to issue blocking orders to restrict access to sites deemed to be infringing on copyright, particularly those broadcasting live events without authorization. It sets forth the procedures for obtaining these court orders, specifies the conditions under which they can be issued, and outlines the responsibilities and protections for service providers required to implement these orders.
General Summary
The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act seeks to enhance protections against digital piracy conducted through foreign websites or online services. It empowers U.S. copyright owners and exclusive licensees to petition federal courts to block access to infringing sites. Upon a finding that the site likely infringes copyright and that the owner would suffer irreparable harm, a court may issue a blocking order. The order requires internet service providers to prevent access to the offending sites, with several safeguards in place to balance enforcement with user rights.
Significant Issues
Several significant issues arise from this bill. Firstly, the allowance for ex parte orders, where courts may issue blocking orders without notifying or hearing from the accused foreign website operators, raises concerns about potential infringements on due process rights. This could lead to unjust situations where website operators have insufficient opportunity to contest allegations of infringement.
The bill's broad immunity clauses for service providers are also contentious, as they may shield providers from liability even if their actions do not align perfectly with judicial intentions. This could undermine the bill's effectiveness by allowing some service providers to evade accountability.
Furthermore, the definitions within the bill, such as those for "service providers" and "foreign persons," may be seen as restrictive or overly broad, respectively. These definitions could result in uneven application of the law, where smaller service providers might be unfairly excluded from obligations or entities might conceal their locations to avoid compliance.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the bill could mean increased protection of copyright works, potentially reducing the availability of counterfeit or unauthorized online content. This might lead to more revenue for creators and rightful copyright holders, encouraging greater investment in content creation.
However, there are potential downsides. The law may inadvertently result in restricted access to non-infringing content if service providers over-block sites to comply with orders. Additionally, users who rely on virtual private networks (VPNs) for privacy or accessing content subject to geographic restrictions might find loopholes exploited by infringers, diminishing the bill's intended effectiveness.
Impact on Stakeholders
Creators and Copyright Holders: They stand to benefit from enhanced protections against piracy, potentially increasing their revenue streams from creative works and live broadcasts.
Service Providers: While they gain broad immunities under the bill, they must also navigate the compliance landscape, incurring costs and operational responsibilities. Smaller providers could face challenges if required to implement complex blocking measures.
Foreign Websites and Online Services: Operators of these sites could be significantly impacted, with potential for their websites or services to be blocked from U.S.-based users, affecting their access and visibility.
Consumers: While consumers may enjoy a more regulated internet with legitimate content access, they could face inadvertent access restrictions or enjoy less content diversity due to the stringent measures against foreign websites.
In conclusion, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act proposes significant changes aimed at curbing digital piracy by penalizing foreign entities, but it must be carefully balanced to ensure it doesn't unfairly penalize or overburden service providers or restrict legitimate internet use for the public.
Financial Assessment
The bill H. R. 791 does not include any direct government spending, appropriations, or specified financial allocations. However, the bill introduces provisions related to financial implications for certain parties involved in the enforcement of the bill.
Cost Obligations for Petitioners
A significant financial reference within the bill is the requirement for petitioners to pay 'reasonable marginal costs' incurred by service providers during order compliance, as delineated in Section 502A(b)(5)(D). This requires those who request the enforcement of blocking orders to bear certain costs the service providers incur. The definition of what constitutes 'reasonable' costs is not clearly articulated, which could lead to disputes. This vagueness presents a challenge, as smaller entities might find the financial burden of these costs to be prohibitive, discouraging them from pursuing legal action against infringing websites. This issue echoes one of the identified concerns about the financial pressures on petitioners when challenging orders.
Service Providers' Financial Immunity
The bill also highlights a broad provision granting immunity to service providers from liability for actions taken in compliance with these orders, as discussed in Section 502A(b)(8)(A). This immunity includes safeguarding against any claims for injuries arising from either the enforcement of the blocking orders or actions perceived to comply in good faith. While this clause aims to encourage service provider participation by reducing legal risk, it raises the potential issue of ethical accountability, especially if providers' actions deviate from intended judicial outcomes, possibly side-stepping financial liabilities.
Definition and Scope Concerns
Furthermore, the definition of 'service provider', which specifies an annual revenue threshold of over $100 million (Section 502A(e)(7)(A)(ii)), implicitly creates a financial cut-off. This might exclude smaller providers who could be integral to enforcing copyright protections. Thus, there are concerns about fairness and the equitable application of the law. Smaller providers falling below this threshold might not involve themselves in blocking efforts, potentially undermining enforcement efficiency.
These financial considerations introduce complexities regarding who bears the enforcement costs and how they relate to the broader legal effectiveness and fairness of the bill. Resolving these financial uncertainties and clarifying responsibilities are crucial to achieving the bill's intended impact on combating online copyright infringement effectively.
Issues
The allowance for ex parte orders under Section 502A(a)(7) poses a significant legal issue, as it may infringe upon the due process rights of defendants, potentially leading to unjust outcomes where defendants are not given adequate opportunity to contest the allegations.
The broad immunity clause for service providers in Section 502A(b)(8)(A) is controversial as it may allow them to evade liability even when their actions are misaligned with the judicial intentions, which raises important legal and ethical considerations.
The definition of 'service provider' in Section 502A(e)(7) is somewhat restrictive, potentially excluding smaller providers who may still have a considerable impact on enforcement, and leads to concerns about fairness and equal application of the law.
The requirement for petitioners to pay 'reasonable marginal costs' for compliance in Section 502A(b)(5)(D) can lead to financial disputes over what constitutes 'reasonable', potentially imposing significant financial burdens on smaller entities challenging orders.
The stipulation in Section 502A(b)(2)(A)(ii) that blocking orders should not 'significantly burden the service provider' is vague, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretations and legal challenges over what qualifies as a 'significant burden'.
The potential indefinite extension of orders without clear reevaluation processes in Section 502A(b)(6) raises concerns about the permanence and fairness of blocking orders, which could be seen as an overreach lacking appropriate judicial review.
The exemption for VPNs from certain blocking obligations as outlined in Section 502A(b)(7)(B)(ii) may create a loophole that infringing entities can exploit, undermining the overall effectiveness of the bill's enforcement mechanisms.
The subjectivity of the term 'reasonably diligent investigation' in Section 502A(a)(2)(C) exposes the process to uneven application, potentially leading to both overzealous enforcement against legitimate services and insufficient action against infringing entities.
The absence of a cap or clear definition of 'reasonable marginal costs' for cost recovery by service providers under Section 502A(b)(5)(D) could lead to financial burdens shifting unfairly onto petitioners without proper oversight or limits.
The broad definition of 'foreign person' in Section 502A(e)(4)(B) could incentivize entities to obscure their locations deliberately to avoid regulation, potentially enabling infringing activities to persist despite the law's intended purpose.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section titled "Short title" states that the Act can be officially called the "Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act" or abbreviated as "FADPA."
2. Blocking orders relating to specifically identified infringing foreign websites or online services Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section proposes a legal process for U.S. courts to issue blocking orders to prevent access to foreign websites or services that infringe on copyrights, especially focusing on live events. It outlines how petitions can be filed by copyright owners, the criteria for courts to issue orders, protections for service providers, and other procedural details.
Money References
- “(7) SERVICE PROVIDER.—The term ‘service provider’— “(A) means— “(i) a broadband provider, and “(ii) a provider of public domain name resolution services that has an annual revenue of over $100 million; and “(B) does not include— “(i) service providers that provide domain name system resolution functions or services exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols; or “(ii) service providers that exclusively provide virtual private network (VPN) services, or similar services that encrypt and route user traffic through intermediary servers; or “(iii) an operator of a premises, such as a coffee shop, bookstore, airline, private end-user network, library, or university, that acquires broadband internet access service from a provider or entity described under subparagraph (A) to enable patrons of the premises to access broadband internet service from the premises.
502A. Blocking orders relating to specifically identified infringing foreign websites or online services Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section outlines procedures for obtaining court orders to block access to foreign websites or online services that infringe on copyright. It specifies the conditions under which such orders can be issued, how service providers should respond, and the legal protections offered to them when complying with these orders.
Money References
- (7) SERVICE PROVIDER.—The term “service provider”— (A) means— (i) a broadband provider, and (ii) a provider of public domain name resolution services that has an annual revenue of over $100 million; and (B) does not include— (i) service providers that provide domain name system resolution functions or services exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols; or (ii) service providers that exclusively provide virtual private network (VPN) services, or similar services that encrypt and route user traffic through intermediary servers; or (iii) an operator of a premises, such as a coffee shop, bookstore, airline, private end-user network, library, or university, that acquires broadband internet access service from a provider or entity described under subparagraph (A) to enable patrons of the premises to access broadband internet service from the premises.