Business U.S. Anti-Piracy Symposium Emphasizes Need for Site Blocking


January 27, 2025 by Ernesto Van der Sar

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held an anti-piracy symposium last week to discuss the latest achievements, challenges, and solutions in combating piracy. Experts from the public and private sectors came together to discuss various topics, including the need to deploy balanced and effective site blocking measures in the United States.

Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) organized an anti-piracy symposium where several experts discussed recent achievements, new challenges, and potential solutions.

Held at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, the meeting brought together public and private sector players to discuss various copyright and piracy-related topics.

For example, trial attorney Vasantha Rao, who works as the Department of Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, discussed the Gears Reloaded case, the Z-Library takedown, plus international domain seizure actions including Operation Offsides.

Michael Christin, another trial attorney at the DoJ, went into great detail on the Jetflix case, discussing various challenges his team faced while litigating the case.

This was an openly accessible symposium, so discussion and commentary was limited to information already in the public record. That said, when discussing future anti-piracy solutions, more novel perspectives were brought up.

Piracy is ‘Maturing’​

In a session on the latest trends in piracy and piracy prevention, Piracy Monitor founder Steven Hawley explained that piracy as an industry has evolved. There are many professional ‘pirate’ actors offering various services, both to consumers and aspiring site operators.

“I would say first off, the piracy in the universe has really matured, it’s metastasized, it’s a multichannel, multilevel industry, multinational phenomenon,” Hawley said.

“Market entry for a pirate is easy. If you wanted to become a pirate tomorrow, you could go online and find organizations that provide Piracy as a Service, they’ll give you content, they’ll give you a distribution platform, they’ll design your user interface, quite sophisticated.”

Marissa Bostick, Head of Global Litigation at the Motion Picture Association (MPA), also sees a combination of increased professionalism and brazenness. Interestingly, this is paired with a shift from free to paid piracy services, with Bostick mentioning ‘Magis TV‘ as one of the examples.

“Users are paying to get access to the pirated content, whether it’s IPTV, premium cyber locker accounts, illegal password services, set-top boxes, there are various forms of this. It means the pirates are actually getting direct streams of income,” Bostick said.

The fact that some pirate services don’t even try to lie low anymore is evident in examples of brazen behavior. They openly advertise themselves through billboards and register for trademarks, as Magis TV recently did.

“Piracy is really sometimes coming out of the shadows. So what we’re seeing, and we see this in Latin America, for example, billboards for piracy sites. They’re paying influencers to go on social media and promote them. They’re registering for trademarks. This is not something that’s happening on some dark web,” Bostick added.

The American ‘Site Blocking’ Dream​

The speakers went into great detail on these and other challenges. This ultimately led to the question of what can be done in response. Aside from litigation, including criminal prosecutions, pirate site blocking was frequently mentioned as a solution.

MPA’s Marissa Bostick said that they have been working on this for many years and that it’s been one of the most effective anti-piracy remedies.

There are now site blocking solutions in more than 50 countries around the world, including Australia France, Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and South Korea.

uspto-sym.jpg.webp

The United States is notably absent from this list, but that may change. Bostick said that, with bipartisan and bicameral support, site blocking legislation may eventually move forward in the United States.

The call for site blocking was supported by many other speakers, including Lui Simpson of the Association of American Publishers, who stressed that the U.S. “is lagging far behind” compared to other countries, partly because the initial SOPA site blocking proposal failed in 2012.

“We’re hopeful that this time around we’ll make progress. As you know, we tried this maybe 13 years ago. The hope now is that the misinformation will not be so much of a hindrance here to actually getting a remedy in place.”

“It is long overdue. I think we’re one of the few, let’s just say more developed countries that unfortunately does not have this remedy,” Simpson added.

Attenzione!​

U.S. site blocking discussions are not new and, in a meeting dedicated to anti-piracy solutions, there was little pushback. That said, it is clear that if site blocking comes to America, it should be done right.

This means that potential errors and overblocking should be ruled out, for as far as that’s possible. This is particularly important now that the Italian “Piracy Shield” site blocking scheme is cause for continued controversy.

That hasn’t gone unnoticed by the panelists at the symposium. Steven Hawley, for example, mentioned the “Piracy Shield” has had its challenges, especially because much of the process is automated without detailed verification.

“It sounds like a great system, but it needs fine-tuning. I guess this is a message to anyone who’s developing platforms like this, watch out for false positives,” Hawley said.

Lui Simpson also stressed that the U.S. should learn from site blocking schemes in other jurisdictions. However, she was not referring to overblocking, but to the tendency of blocked sites to launch alternative domains almost instantly.

If the U.S. proposes a site blocking solution, it should be dynamic, so that new domains can be added swiftly.

Bostick acknowledged this and stressed that the MPA has more than a decade of experience with site blocking measures around the globe. So, they can use everything they learned thus far to come up with a balanced and effective solution.

“We have over ten years of experience at this point with site blocking in various countries, different parts of the world, and how it can work seamlessly and effectively. So we need to use all that and use that experience to move forward,” Bostick stressed.

All in all, the USPTO’s anti-piracy symposium offered an intriguing peek into the learnings and priorities of various key players in the public and private sector. It also revealed that despite previous successes, there are still many challenges ahead.


May 14, 2022: Pirate Site Blocking is Making its Way Into Free Trade Agreements
Feb 24, 2023: ‘Time for U.S. Lawmakers to Discuss Pirate Site Blocking’
Dec 17, 2023: Pirate Site Blocking Demands Intensify as U.S. Lawmakers Get Fmovies Walkthrough
Oct 30, 2024: Tech Companies Flag Piracy Blocking as Threat to the Open Internet & Digital Trade
Nov 7, 2024: IPTV Piracy Blocking at the Internet’s Core Routers Undergoes Testing
 
  • Horrifying
  • Lunacy
  • Dumb
Reactions: Martian High Command, Elim Garak, Vesperus and 18 others
Click to expand...
Fuck these people and fuck their attempts to ruin/censor the internet.

PovertySprocket said:
MPA/RIAA have been malding and shidding since the introduction of tape recorders.
Click to expand...

Yup.. People forget that they waged a huge legal war when VHS first came out and got BTFO.. Never gave up though.. which brings us to the wonderful, criminal law protected DRM, digital only and potential future streaming age now. (i.e. They are about to win) Not only were their empty legal threats against hardware makers at the advent of the DVD/BR eras successful, sony just announced that they are ending the production of blank BRs and write drives.

Current CR law needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt as it was originally intended. A short to mid term protection on copying (and selling) a full work.. A few years or so, not a century. To ensure the creator can make some money off of it, so that others with money can't come along and sell it out from under them, and thus incentivize the creation of more works. It was certainly never intended to protect aspects and little details of sold works from modification by owners, with or without the help of anyone else. And sure as hell was never meant to be abused as a means of protection for things like DRM or as a blanket power grab over someone else's hardware via loopholes like firmware etc. DMCA needs to go first, for so many different reasons that it isn't funny. It's attempt to protect DRM and deprive you of your right to personal copy/backup and control, with criminal law.. Is the most egregious and dangerous.

The whole fallacious idea of "ownership" and "right" to works needs to be squashed back into dust once again. These are and were granted protections, not rights of ownership and 100% absolute control.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: The Enchanter, Vecr, Vining and 17 others
Fapcop said:
Imagine being able to say: “Yeah, I make my living enabling Hollywood pedophiles to make even more money serving goyslop to regular folks!” And still be able to sleep at night.
Click to expand...
Blood drinking Hollywood types don't sleep at night. They sleep during the day, in gravedirt from their homeland.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Enchanter, CEO of Gay, UnsufficentBoobage and 4 others
New Bill Aims to Block Foreign Pirate Sites in the U.S.

January 29, 2025 by Ernesto Van der Sar

Pirate site blocking orders are a step closer to becoming reality in the United States after Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act earlier today. Should it become law, FAPDA would allow rightsholders to obtain site blocking orders targeted at verified pirate sites, presumably run by foreign operators. The blocking orders would apply to both ISPs and DNS resolvers. The latter is a novelty.

For a long time, pirate site blocking was regarded as a topic most U.S. politicians would rather avoid.

This lingering remnant of the SOPA debacle drove copyright holders to focus on the introduction of blocking efforts in other countries instead, mostly successfully.

Those challenging times are now more than a decade old and momentum is shifting. Today, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), which paves the way for blocking injunctions targeting foreign operated pirate sites, being implemented on home soil.

A ‘New and Improved’ Pirate Site Blocking Bill​

If approved, FADPA would allow copyright holders to obtain court orders requiring large Internet service providers (ISPs) and DNS resolvers to block access to pirate sites. The bill would amend existing copyright law to focus specifically on ‘foreign websites’ that are ‘primarily designed’ for copyright infringement.

The inclusion of DNS resolvers is significant. Major tech companies such as Google and Cloudflare offer DNS services internationally, raising the possibility of blocking orders having an effect worldwide. DNS providers with less than $100 million in annual revenue are excluded.

While site blocking is claimed to exist in more than 60 countries, DNS resolvers are typically not included in site blocking laws and regulations. These services have been targeted with blocking requests before but it’s certainly not standard.

Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act
fadpa.jpg.webp​

Petition, Review, Block…​

Every blocking order must go through a U.S. court, supported by clear evidence of copyright infringement, due process, and judicial oversight to prevent censorship. Courts must also verify that any site-blocking order does not interfere with access to lawful material before issuing an order.

In practice, a blocking request would go through a multistep process before it is issued.

1. Petition: A copyright owner or licensee files a petition in U.S. District Court seeking a preliminary order. The petition must identify the domain name and/or IP-address.

2. Notice: The petitioner must make reasonable efforts to notify both the operator of the foreign website and the service providers identified in the petition.

3. Court Review: The court reviews the petition to determine whether it meets the requirements for issuing a preliminary order, including a copyright infringement check. If the court finds the criteria have been met, a preliminary order follows.

4. Opportunity to Contest: The operator of the foreign website has 30 days to appear in court and contest the preliminary order.

5. Motion for Blocking Order: If the preliminary order is upheld, the petitioner can then move for a blocking order. Before issuing a blocking order, the court must determine that it will not interfere with access to non-infringing content, place a significant burden on service providers, or disserve the public interest.

6. Final Order: Once the court is satisfied that the blocking order meets the requirements, it will issue the final order, and service providers will be required to implement it within 15 days.
Click to expand...

The bill requires all court orders to be accessible to the public, immediately after they are issued. The proposal does not prescribe any specific blocking measures, however, leaving room for service providers to determine the least intrusive methods to comply.

Praise and Critique​

Rightsholders already have the option to request a blocking injunction under U.S. Copyright Law. However, these may trigger liability for the online service providers. FADPA clarifies that these are “no fault” injunctions, shielding ISPs, DNS providers, and other intermediaries from legal liability.

The bill was introduced after months of discussions and negotiations with stakeholders from the content and tech industries. Whether any specific agreement was reached is unclear, but Rep. Lofgren is pleased with the result.

“The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act is a smart, targeted approach that focuses on safety and intellectual property, while simultaneously upholding due process, respecting free speech, and ensuring enforcement is narrowly focused on the actual problem at hand,” Lofgren says.

Interestingly, Lofgren was one of the lawmakers who fiercely opposed the SOPA site blocking proposal to protect the Open Internet. She sees the current bill as a proper and much needed alternative.

“Now – after working for over a year with the tech, film, and television industries – 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,” Lofgren notes.

MPA Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin thanked Rep. Lofgren for her efforts to support the creative industry, describing the bill as an effective tool to combat offshore piracy in the United States.

Not everyone is equally enthusiastic. Consumer interest group Public Knowledge was quick to condemn the “censorious” site blocking proposal.

“Rather than attacking the problem at its source – bringing the people running overseas piracy websites to court – Congress and its allies in the entertainment industry has decided to build out a sweeping infrastructure for censorship,” says Public Knowledge’s Meredith Rose.

In the weeks and months ahead, we expect more commentary from stakeholders, including ISPs and major tech companies. While the public outrage of 13 years ago will be difficult to top, there will likely be heated discussions before FADPA goes up for a vote.
 
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: Coo Coo Bird, Martian High Command, Elim Garak and 4 others
You remember how useless DNS blocking was in the last decade? By the time they figure this it will be exactly as worthless. Torrents already work over i2p. Tor allows me to access basically any site. The next big thing in piracy will just come with a built in i2p node or whatever.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: CEO of Gay and Martian High Command
Once they find out a massive majority of people doing the pirating or I assume what they don't like in regards to changing the rules on how they govern the internet in order to gain more control is that millions of brown people misuse the internet compared to whites, if you recall at some point there was a person named omiinahellcat who was busted as being a multi millionaire capitalizing on IPTV streaming (iirc)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak
They are pushing this nonsense again? It doesn't work, is a violation of rights and most importantly, the tech doesn't work! And is easily bypassed.
People need to organize to fight this! I have a feeling that parts of the left will sell out on this issue since they already dream of mass censorship for other reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martian High Command, i440BX, Elim Garak and 3 others
FADPA: MPA’s Export-Only Site-Blocking Primed For Full Strength U.S. Launch

February 1, 2025 by Andy Maxwell

There's no ideal time to promote a blocking system that by design restricts freedom and, for the vast majority of citizens, offers no tangible benefit. Yet, over the past 15 years or so, the major Hollywood studios have convinced authorities in dozens of countries that blocking pirate sites benefits everyone. If the FADPA bill passes, the MPA's export-only site-blocking system will be reimported to the U.S. at close to maximum strength, straight off the bat.

FADPA-WOOD-s1.png.webp

When U.S. site-blocking proposals died alongside SOPA in 2012, major Hollywood studios and their music industry counterparts, switched up their plans a little.

A SOPA victory would’ve sent a powerful message that site-blocking is a reasonable response to infringement, and that U.S. partners overseas should follow the example. Yet even with no victory to celebrate, for more than a decade the MPA promoted site-blocking measures to any country willing to listen, anywhere in the world.

The tools envisioned by SOPA may have evaporated, but work to protect the studios’ content in Europe and beyond did not. Although it was still too soon for fresh site-blocking proposals back in the States, preparations were effectively underway already.

Where suitable legal frameworks were already in place, the studios applied experience gained from injunctions won in the UK, to explore similar options elsewhere. Successes in the EU included the countries with the largest populations; Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, and Sweden. With a population of just 2.8m, Lithuania also found ways to implement site-blocking, under existing law or subsequent amendments, just like all the others.

‘Global Site Blocking Strategy’​

The MPA’s site-blocking work, whether conducted directly or through local partners, has been regularly reported here on TF. Whether those who opposed SOPA considered site-blocking in Europe, Australia, India, Brazil, and Thailand, as relevant to the U.S. is unclear. Preparations for an eventual U.S. return have become increasingly obvious though.

All MPA site-blocking programs worldwide are not just relevant; together they form the foundations on which the urgent need for site-blocking in the United States has been carefully built.

Under a program known as the ‘Global Site Blocking Strategy’ the MPA selects which platforms are suitable for site-blocking based on various factors and overall benefit to the site blocking mission. Other than the usual internal political issues in a handful of countries, we’re unaware of any significant setbacks.

TorrentFreak had the opportunity to view recent data which confirms that the MPA is “involved” in 44% of all blocking worldwide, alongside an additional claim that 80% of blocking involves ‘MPA Content’. One possible reason for the discrepancy is member studios taking individual action, rather than as a single group under the MPA. As the exclusive rightsholders of the world’s most valuable video content, the studios are involved by default.

Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act – Initial Impressions​

The FADPA bill published this week isn’t especially complicated. While some countries accommodate blocking with specific legislation, many use interpretations of existing law instead. The FADPA bill is focused and mostly unambiguous; while not an endorsement of the content per se, it receives top marks for clarity.

Also worthy of mention is the headline commitment to transparency. “Courts must publish blocking orders on a publicly accessible website” and include details such as the petitioner’s name, the foreign website or online service being blocked, the date and duration of the order, and a summary of the court’s findings.

Good News First – Then the Bad News​

While some are already calling for rejection of the entire bill, a transparency requirement under law could go some way to ensuring accountability, which in turn should limit or even prevent overreach. For the record, there are no signs that the MPA has ever abused its blocking powers. Unfortunately, the risk of others doing so can’t ever be ruled out, and that’s why the following needs attention.

Courts may redact sensitive information to prevent circumvention or risks to national security, personal safety, or an ongoing – law enforcement investigation.

The scope here effectively grants permission to redact all useful information from every order. The majority of all blocking takes place to counter circumvention and, since that alone indicates disrespect for the court’s authority, convincing the court to withhold information might be straightforward.

Personal safety could mean almost anything. There’s no shortage of claims that since pirate sites are dangerous, they need to be blocked, but to date nothing to suggest that blocking pirate sites is dangerous in itself. That may warrant an explanation, it’s certainly news to us.

The opportunity to redact due to an investigation is not unexpected. However, most major pirate sites are subjected to a police investigation before being placed on the Infringing Website List maintained by the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. Sites on the list are monitored until they’re removed, which could mean all sites of significance qualify for redactions.

No Transparency, No Accountability​

The prospect of less well known rightsholders entering the blocking arena at some point is a legitimate concern. For those concerned over the potential for abuse, the only practical solution is unambiguous transparency. Even in countries where blocking orders are published for scrutiny, there are numerous ways to deny access to information.

For example, the preference for dynamic injunctions allows rightsholders to add new domains for blocking by communicating them directly to ISPs, without any need to inform the court. Instead of providing the court with a list of 30 domains, providing just one in the first instance keeps everyone in the dark, since the remaining 29 are sent directly to ISPs in a ‘dynamic’ update. This example isn’t hypothetical – it happens.

Taken as a whole, there is very little to suggest that transparency is taken seriously in the majority of countries with a blocking program. On one hand blocking is used to prevent access to sites with millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of users. On the other, IP addresses and domain names are often described as sensitive information, despite being publicly available information.

Rest assured, when a site has its domain name or IP address blocked, the operators are the first people to know. Any claim that public disclosure assists circumvention suggests that blocking those assets had no effect on site availability. By definition, blocked domains and blocked IP addresses are useless and that’s worth recording, publicly, in every single instance.

No Provision to Hold Anyone Accountable​

A lack of transparency eliminates risk of being held accountable for overblocking. When those who overblock have no obligation to publicly report errors or publish information sufficient for others to discover them, anything can happen. The bill offers immunity to ISPs in key areas, which confirms the risk of liability if anything goes wrong.

Indeed, ISPs are not liable for the consequences when blocking instructions are carried out in good faith. If the ISPs are immune, the section on who does take responsibility is only notable for its absence. We’ll provide new information surrounding the bill very soon but until then, two items that give pause for thought.

As far as we can determine, this bill isn’t something the MPA came up with in isolation. More likely than not, ISPs, and other intermediaries have also been involved for some time. The provisions in place to protect their interests are extremely specific and at least to our knowledge, nothing like this exists anywhere else in the world.

To the extent that cooperation on blocking effectively amounts to a shared interest partnership, particularly when ISPs act as licensed distributors of copyrighted content subject to blocking orders, it’s possible that questions concerning data privacy may enter the equation. Many ISPs hold valuable data relevant to blocking measures, arguably no better source of information exists anywhere else.

Voting aside, this may be a deal long since done; site-blocking may be inevitable and once in place, there will be no turning back.

The bill itself is a framework for a blocking program that has undergone constant tuning, so much so that it’s now governed by a set of universal ‘best practices’ that are applicable in every country the system is deployed. A review of the paperwork reveals that to be a generally positive step. Yet if a site-blocking system exists, the likelihood it will eventually be used to censor free speech, increases exponentially.

Build it and then see who comes.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Coo Coo Bird, Elim Garak, pikachudidnothingwrong and 1 other person
I really wish they didn't talk about it like it was certainty... it's no the best way to build up resistance. But with republicans in control and so many still shill types to big business, and the left wanting censorship for heir own reasons... Kind of makes sense. (:_(

People seriously need to stand up about now. This won't end a HW movies and big music. Article even points out as much. How long before the anime and manga industry in the west use it to further lock down all content versions not approved by them. Don't forget that they have also licensed things they basically sat on for "suitability" reasons later. Look at what's happening in he world of manga and anime already. The western business world is collectively shutting down Japanese content they don' like. Even non ecchi are being hit! Hell, i wouldn't put it past the Japanese side to go after things they don't license over here or can't. (remember that they have an on again off again history of no even trying to import certain works or whole types) So many doors of potential doom this opens up. The progressives will 100% use and abuse this to target hings and speech they don't like.

Most importantly.. This once again violates the state's role in CR protection. This is a civil matter, not a legal or criminal one.

Burn CR o he ground and let's start over.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Martian High Command, UnsufficentBoobage, i440BX and 2 others
pikachudidnothingwrong said:
I really wish they didn't talk about it like it was certainty... it's no the best way to build up resistance. But with republicans in control and so many still shill types to big business, and the left wanting censorship for heir own reasons... Kind of makes sense. (:_(
...
Burn CR to the ground and let's start over.
Click to expand...
There are business shills on the left too. Chris Dodd was a Democratic US Senator for 30 years before becoming the MPAA's (now MPA) CEO. On both sides, there is a lot of distrust of Big Tech, which have typically been the bulwark against new Internet censorship/control laws. But Big Tech caved on FOSTA-SESTA, which was signed into law by Trump. And we've seen the right's flirting with Section 230 reform, and all sorts of bad ideas related to it.

I think it's amazing that the US portion of the Internet has resisted as much of this for as long as it has. Terrible things are coming in the future from the copyright lobby. We love copyright minimalism but it's an absolute niche position among lawmakers. AI fears could also be used to strengthen copyright protections. Something tells me Redditors and the "cat signal" aren't going to win the upcoming fights.

pikachudidnothingwrong said:
How long before the anime and manga industry in the west use it to further lock down all content versions not approved by them. Don't forget that they have also licensed things they basically sat on for "suitability" reasons later. Look at what's happening in he world of manga and anime already. The western business world is collectively shutting down Japanese content they don' like. Even non ecchi are being hit! Hell, i wouldn't put it past the Japanese side to go after things they don't license over here or can't. (remember that they have an on again off again history of no even trying to import certain works or whole types) So many doors of potential doom this opens up.
Click to expand...
TorrentFreak covers the manga topic occasionally. You should make a habit of checking TorrentFreak. It only publishes about 2 articles a day.

Japan has generally focused on Japanese language sites, but that could obviously have an effect on raws distribution. We'll see if the West gears up to censor using copyright weapons. I think manga piracy has gone largely ignored but that could change quickly. AI is a possible antidote to Western censorship since as long as you can get hold of the raws, you could translate it yourself in seconds. Some MTLs are very bad, but I don't think all the tools are created equal, they are improving, and if they don't work for the casual they can at least save experts a lot of time.

pikachudidnothingwrong said:
The progressives will 100% use and abuse this to target things and speech they don't like.
Click to expand...
I don't think FADPA will get the job done as written. It's targeted at foreign sites (it's in the name), and is focused on copyright infringement.

Hypothetically, if it worked for any sites, could the Kiwi Farms be at risk from a Greer-style attack? TorrentFreak notes no penalties for the blockers, and you could incur significant expenses defending yourself in a District Court. Maybe a malicious blocker could simply claim Kiwi Farms is a foreign site, like how Moon was deemed some kind of Russian sanctions liability by at least one company.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Coo Coo Bird and pikachudidnothingwrong
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back