Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act
The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) would amend the Copyright Act (title 17) to let copyright owners go to a U.S. district court to obtain a preliminary order identifying a foreign website or online service that allegedly infringes their rights, and to seek court-approved blocking orders against U.S. service providers to prevent access to that foreign site from within the United States. The process envisions a two-stage approach: first, a preliminary order establishing likely infringement and irreparable harm; then, after court involvement, a blocking order directing broadband providers and certain large domain-name resolution services to block or restrict access to the identified foreign site. The act adds detailed criteria for identifying infringing sites, procedures for notice and opposition, and mechanisms to add more providers or domain names over time. It also includes transparency provisions for orders, limited liability protections for providers that comply, and a six-month delay before the act takes effect. In short, FADPA would create an extra-judicial-like tool, via court orders, to curb access to foreign infringing websites by pressing U.S. internet intermediaries to block or restrict access. It raises important questions about due process, cross-border jurisdiction, potential impact on legitimate content, security and privacy for users, and the balance between copyright enforcement and other public interests.
Key Points
- 1Preliminary order to identify infringement and irreparable harm
- 2- A copyright owner can petition a U.S. district court for a preliminary order if a foreign website or online service is likely infringing works and causing irreparable harm, including in the case of imminent live-event transmissions.
- 3- The petition must include an internet identifier (IP address, domain name, etc.), proof of notice to the site/operator, notice to service providers, and a determination that the operator is outside the United States or not clearly within the United States.
- 4- A master may be appointed to assist the court if the site operator does not appear; the master can gather publicly available information but must not unduly delay proceedings.
- 5- The court can issue the preliminary order after evaluating filings, opposition periods, and any timely reply, with expedited handling for imminent live-event harms.
- 6Blocking orders to service providers
- 7- After a preliminary order, the petitioner may move for an order directing U.S. service providers to block access to the identified foreign site (or to take reasonable, technically feasible measures to prevent access).
- 8- Service providers must receive proper notice, and the court must ensure the measure would not unduly interfere with non-infringing content, would not unduly burden the provider, and serves the public interest.
- 9- Orders set timelines, including generally 12 months for non-live-event targets (with extensions possible) and rapid deadlines (often within days) for live-event-related harms.
- 10- Providers may be added or removed through motions, with the court confirming each added provider meets the criteria and that the extended order remains properly scoped.
- 11Scope, measures, and limitations
- 12- The order cannot specify exact technical methods; it cannot require actions that block non-infringing content or that block VPNs, and it cannot compel measures conflicting with public network integrity.
- 13- Implementation reviews focus on whether actions were reasonable and not done in bad faith; temporary suspensions may be allowed to correct issues or protect network integrity; providers can seek cost recovery for reasonable implementation expenses.
- 14- The order may be amended to cover additional providers or additional domain names/IPs if the target site reconstitutes elsewhere or uses circumvention tactics.
- 15Transparency, immunity, and rule of construction
- 16- Orders and key details (petitioner name, affected domains/IPs, issuance date, duration, and a court summary) would be publicly posted on a court website, with redactions possible for security or safety reasons.
- 17- Service providers that comply in good faith are granted immunity from certain liability related to blocking measures and from being used as evidence of infringement; the act preserves DMCA 512 immunity and clarifies it does not reduce existing protections.
- 18- The act clarifies that its provisions do not alter other aspects of the Copyright Act or DMCA, except as explicitly stated.
- 19Definitions and effective date
- 20- Definitions cover: covered person (copyright owner or exclusive licensee), foreign website or online service, service provider (broadband provider and certain large public DNS resolvers), live events, and other key terms.
- 21- The act would take effect six months after enactment.