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

https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-anti-piracy-symposium-emphazises-site-blocking-250127/

https://archive.ph/Z1kVh

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.



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

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

Now there are two of them!

Second U.S. Pirate Site-Blocking Bill Incoming: MPA, Google, Verizon Met to Discuss

https://archive.ph/voi6O

A renewed attempt to introduce site blocking in the U.S. emerged in late January when U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D) introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act. The FADPA bill received the MPA's full support, and it now transpires that similar legislation is being prepared by U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R). A recent meeting to discuss the 'American Copyright Protection Act' was attended by Disney, Paramount, and Amazon, plus Google, YouTube, and Verizon.

Over 12 years in the making, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act was introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) late last month.

Carefully crafted to avoid the controversies of the failed SOPA bill in 2012, FADPA’s central aim is to provide a framework to facilitate mass site-blocking measures in the United States, targeting foreign pirate sites. Importantly, FADPA seeks legal amendments to shield subjected ISPs from liability.

After rightsholders in Italy and more recently France obtained injunctions against DNS resolvers operated by Cloudflare, Google, and OpenDNS, the FADPA bill seeks similar measures right from the start. DNS resolvers operated by companies with less than $100m in annual revenue are excluded, however.

FADPA Opposition?​

The self-imposed restrictions on DNS resolvers cited in the FADPA bill, do not mean that the resulting measures are limited in scope. The so-called ‘dynamic’ injunctions envisioned by FADPA cannot exist within an inflexible legal framework, meaning that space for adjustment will become evident as the process moves forward.

The current climate may offer the best opportunity in years to push FADPA over the line. Google’s traditional opposition to blocking proposals is well known, but activity in more recent years suggests a non-front line position for the search giant, that’s if there’s any opposition at all.

The potential for a change in dynamics becomes more interesting on the back of news that FADPA will soon find itself joined by another bill with similar site-blocking aims. After waiting 12 years for a new bill to arrive, the prospect of weighing two bills against each other comes at a time when rightsholders are already showing signs of support for both.

Incoming: American Copyright Protection Act​

Less specific in its title but just as focused as its FADPA rival in tackling foreign pirate sites, details of the American Copyright Protection Act emerged in The Ankler.

The publication introduces ACPA architect U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R) as “New Hollywood Friend.” Considering the congressman’s focus in ACPA is “judicial blocking” of foreign sites, this will further amplify the need for action.

During a roundtable meeting late January at the Millennium Biltmore in Los Angeles, key supporters of FADPA were in attendance to discuss ACPA and the threat posed by overseas pirate sites. Whether site blocking (‘judicial blocking’ in ACPA parlance) can effectively deal with surging levels of piracy will have been answered affirmatively by at least three of the companies in attendance.

As members of the MPA, a driving force behind many of the site blocking schemes operating in the world today, Amazon, Disney, and Paramount are proponents of site blocking by default. In practical terms, the United States represents the final frontier, or at least the last major site blocking hurdle.

Other Participants’ Positions Less Clear​

Also in attendance during the off-the-record meeting were executives from Google and YouTube. Under common ownership, any official position on site-blocking measures hasn’t been raised in public for years. Traditionally an opponent of blocking, Google directly or indirectly played a key role in the failure of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill in 2012.

To a background of increased business scrutiny in both the United States and Europe, signs that Google may be less entrenched includes the deindexing of pirate sites from search results. Google only removes sites previously deemed infringing by competent courts, but no longer requires to be a named party itself. A copy of a court order and a list of sites is now enough for Google to take voluntary action, in Europe, Brazil, India, Australia and beyond.

YouTube’s position on foreign pirate sites and site-blocking in general, most likely aligns with that of Google. Given the staggering volume of traffic they account for worldwide, available for free at the point of consumption, describing pirate sites as competitors might not be too much of a stretch.

Of more interest is the presence of a major ISP at the meeting last month.

Verizon and Hundreds of Others​

When FADPA was introduced in January, the MPA and affiliated groups voiced support for the bill in no uncertain terms. Yet without the support and cooperation of other key players, a coordinated site blocking program in the U.S. would never reach its full potential and may even struggle to get off the ground.

For reasons that are still unclear, to our knowledge no major ISPs in the United States have even acknowledged the existence of the bill, let alone stated their official positions.

Regardless of who put them in place, when site blocking schemes irritate or confuse the public, ISPs become the logical focus of consumer complaints. Attitudes to blocking in Europe have softened over time but in the United States, brand image risk could increase along with customer churn. Yet despite being responsible for the blocks, rightsholders remain distant throughout.

As far as we’re able to determine, Verizon was the sole telecoms company at the roundtable meeting, but its official position on site-blocking in this context is unknown. Like most major ISPs, Verizon may conclude that less piracy will have a positive effect on its own bottom line, mostly thanks to improved sales of Fios TV subscriptions.

Matter of Public Interest?​

Who represents the interests of consumers and the wider public in these discussions is unknown. Ultimately they’ll have to deal with any consequences and also pick up the bill, so perhaps a little more transparency will be considered later in the year.

The Consumer Technology Association did participate in the roundtable. The trade group says it acts as “a voice that defends your business from harmful legislation”. To what degree that applies here may differ from member to member.

The group’s non-exhaustive member list below includes Amazon, Disney, Google, Verizon, and a few other familiar names, many of which are currently engaged in site-blocking in other parts of the world, either directly or through subsidiaries.

Netflix, Nvidia, Adobe, Dell, AMD, Discovery, Qualcomm Inc, Alphabet (Google LLC), DISH Network, Amazon, Facebook, Fox Corp, Apple, AT&T, General Motors, Best Buy, HP, Walmart, Comcast, IBM, Intel, Disney, JP Morgan

 

[Blewberry Nausea]

I might download a car now just to spite these faggots.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

Evil people patting each other on the back

MPA Awards U.S. Lawmakers for Their Anti-Piracy Efforts

https://archive.ph/oUZYU

Before the Oscars are handed out early March, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) has announced its own annual awards. Wicked director Jon Chu is a proud recipient, but the bulk of the accolades go to lawmakers and the U.S. Government's IPR Center, who helped to combat online piracy. Perhaps not coincidentally, those lawmakers could help to push a pirate site blocking bill over the line.

Every year, the entertainment industry celebrates its stars in various award ceremonies.

From the Oscars, through the Grammys, to the Emmys, there’s no shortage of spotlights for the finest performers.

Hollywood is abuzz this week leading up to the Oscars ceremony on Sunday. At the same time, the leading movie industry group, the MPA, announced its own annual awards. These celebrate creative achievement too, but mostly IP-related legislative and enforcement efforts.

The MPA and its flagship anti-piracy arm ACE represent the major Hollywood studios, Amazon, and Netflix. The organization has a global presence and helped to orchestrate site blocking measures around the world, paired with high-profile enforcement actions such as the Fmovies takedown.

The MPA Awards Go to…​

This year’s annual awards have a strong national focus, however. This includes the Creator Award, which goes out to “Wicked” director Jon M. Chu, who notably missed out on an Oscar nomination for best directing.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences can rest assured, as the MPA’s Awards are no competition for the Oscars. In fact, Chu is the only filmmaker to receive an award, as the rest of the accolades go out to lawmakers and enforcement partners, who help the movie industry majors protect their copyrights.

The Creative Protector Award, for example, goes to Ivan Arvelo, director of the U.S. Government’s Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center). The IPR Center works closely with the MPA to combat online piracy.

IPR Center has also been instrumental in various domain seizure efforts. This included the sports streaming piracy seizures that were carried out earlier this week.

Recent Seizure Banner

​

MPA says that the IPR Center has been vital to combating online piracy and, in turn, Arvelo stresses that anti-piracy efforts are a top priority for the U.S. Government organization.

“We are proud to stand with the MPA to safeguard intellectual property, and we are grateful to the association for recognizing the important work we do to protect this vital American industry,” Arvelo commented on receiving the Creative Protector Award.

Lauded Senate Leader​

It is no surprise that the MPA awards those who, directly or indirectly, further their interests. This applies to the enforcement side but also to the lawmaking process, where members of the United States Congress help steer future legislation.

This year, the MPA commended three veteran politicians for their efforts to protect the movie industry. They include John Thune, Senate Majority Leader for the Republican Party. This is a pivotal position, which enables significant influence over the legislative process.

Senator Thune will receive an Industry Champion Award for his work on policies that encourage innovation and competitive choice for customers. We’re not aware of any pioneering copyright policy the Senate leader was involved in, but he did extensively advocate for consumer freedom, including the Filter Bubble Transparency Act.

The MPA hasn’t mentioned Thune in any communications on its website before, aside from the fact that MPA’s Senior Vice President of Federal Government Affairs worked for him previously. That said, the award shows that the movie industry group values his work and achievements.

Sen. Coons and Rep. Issa​

The two other lawmakers who received an Industry Champion Award are more directly linked to anti-piracy work. Democratic Senator Chris Coons introduced the PROTECT IP Act in 2011, and later sponsored the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act in 2020, which criminalized pirate streaming services.

Coons also teamed up with other lawmakers, urging domain name registry Verisign to help copyright holders tackle online piracy. And as Chairman of the Senate’s Intellectual Property Subcommittee, he further helped protect rightsholders.

“Coons understands the cultural power and economic value of the film and television industry in the U.S. and across the globe, and he has worked to protect copyright from piracy as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Intellectual Property,” MPA writes.

Sen. John Thune, Sen. Chris Coons and Rep. Darrell Issa (left to right)

​

The final Industry Champion Award goes to Republican House Representative Darrell Issa, who has proven to be a reliable ally for copyright holders over the years. Similar to Coons, he also sponsored the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act, which opened the door to criminal prosecutions of streaming services

Issa has a prominent position as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet. In this capacity, he chaired a prominent hearing on digital piracy, where site blocking was presented as a key solution to this problem.

When Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced her FADPA bill late January, the MPA thanked her, while mentioning Rep. Issa in the same sentence. It later emerged that Rep. Issa is working on his own version of a pirate site-blocking bill.

“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,” MPA CEO Charles Rivkin said at the time.

Surprise​

The award recipients have all earned their stripes over the years. And it doesn’t come as a surprise that the MPA awards those who have its best interests in mind. That these people are in key positions ensures that enforcement priorities stay on track and favorable legislation is passed into law, fits the overall picture.

The most surprising part, perhaps, is that Rep. Lofgren did not receive an award for introducing a site blocking bill. After all, this was not a decision that was made lightly, since the failed SOPA bill left serious scars on the Hill.

There might be logical reasons for this decision, and perhaps the award for Rep. Lofgren will come one day. These are politics, after all, so some things are kept behind closed doors, likely for good reasons.

The MPA Awards Ceremony is scheduled to take place later this year and all honorees are expected to attend.

 

[The Connected Nose]

Oh, they're going require "large" DNS providers like Google and Cloudflare to block domains? I didn't notice. I get all my queries straight from a root server. And there's always Tor...

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

TorrentFreak: Trump Told to Back Pirate Site Blocking Law Instead of 100% Movie Tariffs (archive)

May 7, 2025 by Andy Maxwell

President Trump's strategy to "save" the "dying" movie industry in the United States amounts to a 100% tariff on "any and all" movies produced in "foreign lands." Trump appears to be taking aim at generous incentives offered by the UK, among others. In a response, think tank ITIF suggests an alternative; urge Congress to pass site-blocking legislation and compel countries to enforce copyright protection as part of their tariff negotiations.

President Trump’s announcement on Sunday revealed his plan to save the U.S. movie industry, which according to him is “dying a very fast death.” The solution is tariff-based and most likely damaging to the major Hollywood studios.

Some media reports said the industry had been expecting the announcement. Others described the news sending shockwaves through Hollywood. The bottom line is President Trump’s belief that to prevent the movie industry’s imminent death, “any and all” movies produced in “foreign lands” will be subjected to a 100% tariff.

‘WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!’​

In his Truth Social post, Trump blames the apparent demise of the industry on unspecified countries “offering all sorts of incentives” to draw filmmakers away from producing movies in the United States.

“Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat,” he wrote.

“It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!”



The job of instituting the 100% tariff falls to the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative. Hollywood works closely with the latter when reporting overseas intellectual property threats and other barriers to business; in which report local tariffs are addressed remains to be seen.

ITIF: Here’s a Better Idea​

The Motion Picture Association is yet to publish an official response to Trump’s rescue plan on its website but an organization that often shares the MPA’s views published a response on Tuesday.

Washington-based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) describes itself as the world’s leading think tank for science and technology policy. For the last few years ITIF has been closely aligned with Hollywood on the need for new legislation to counter online piracy in the United States.

Rodrigo Balbontin, associate director for trade, IP, and digital technology governance at ITIF, begins with a general cautionary statement concerning retaliatory measures.

“Tariffs on foreign movies will be the first measure to impose unprecedented tariffs on services. Thanks to its digital economy, the United States has a global trade surplus on services, including films and TV, and America’s top companies export digital services. Expanding the trade war to the digital service sector will create a retaliation risk to one of the United States’s unique advantages: American creativity, innovations, and specialized knowledge,” Balbontin’s response reads [archive].

ITIF then suggests an alternative to the imposition of tariffs on foreign produced movies. The president should back legislation that aims to prevent foreign pirate sites from having free access to consumers in the United States, who they supply with pirated American-owned content, without the owners of that content receiving compensation from anyone.

Instead of tariffs, the Trump administration can protect America’s film industry by reinforcing copyright protection. For example, Trump’s administration should call for Congress to pass legislation to block foreign piracy websites that hurt U.S. creative industries.

This is a proven measure, authorized by at least 50 countries, that reduces piracy, increases legal content consumption, and safeguards America’s creative industry from theft.

Without considering the merits of tariffs, site-blocking in general, or the detail of the FADPA proposal, a broad view may conclude that they all share the common objective of protecting the U.S. movie industry.

Unfortunately, these approaches address different problems. While encouraging inward investment appears to be the main objective of tariffs, not even the total elimination of piracy by site blocking would prevent filmmakers from embracing financial packages unavailable on home soil.

Are Foreign Incentives Damaging the U.S. Movie Industry?​

President Trump claims that foreign incentives are damaging, but whether the industry agrees is a different matter. Companies in the movie business have collectively benefited from various tax-linked schemes to the tune of billions of pounds in the UK alone. The system was overhauled recently but under the previous scheme providing FTR (Film Tax Relief), official government figures show payments growing in recent years.



The new Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) provides companies with a tax credit worth 34% of their UK production costs on a film or high-end TV program. A credit worth 39% of UK production costs applies to animation or children’s TV shows.

Starting April 1, 2025, companies producing film and high-end TV shows could also claim back 39% of their UK visual effects costs. Films with budgets of £15 million or less became eligible for an enhanced rate of 53%.

‘Trump Should Demand Strong IP Protection in Tariff Negotiations’​

With countries all around the world reportedly negotiating with the Trump administration for better deals than those imposed on them recently, ITIF suggests that this could provide an opportunity to demand stronger protection for IP rights.

“The Trump administration should insist on stronger intellectual property protections, including copyright, with the countries that are now negotiating over the Trump tariffs,” ITIF’s response reads.

One only has to read the various reports compiled by the USTR to see that certain countries are considered problematic, with some showing little improvement year after year. Yet viewed through the prism of countries supposedly playing the role of Pied Piper, luring U.S. companies with promises of free cash, better IP protection isn’t really an issue.

Examples highlighted by industry specialists Entertainment Partners reveal that countries with lacking IP protection aren’t usually among those offering the best incentives. Terms and conditions vary but the incentives include:

• Ireland: 40% credit for indy films, 90% up front (effectively an interest-free loan).
• Portugal: 30% cash refund to productions worth €2.5m+
• Spain: federal rebates of 25%-30%, regional schemes; 45%-50% rebate (Canary Islands) and 35%-70% tax credits (Basque region)
• Japan: cash rebate of up to 50% of qualifying production costs, capped at $6.7 million
• Saudi Arabia: 40% incentive
• India: 40% of production costs reimbursed

What happens next is anyone’s guess, which in itself could deter future investment, both at home and overseas.

 

[BradeRunna]

Yes the people who want shit for free adapted with the times. It's the 21st century. Now just admit there isn't a good way to keep people from stealing other peoples collections of 1's and 0's.

 

[pikachudidnothingwrong]

Holy shit, that is legitimately a nightmare idea. This is one step away from a de-facto implementation of the universal CR agreement Bush 2 and Obama were trying to push but then killed under Trump 1. Which would be the end of what's left of the fansub and non licensed translation culture and activity. (Japanese media live in a legal culture of control freak CR and TM law.. they WILL go after non licensed manga and anime series.. including series they refuse to allow over here. To say nothing of fixed/authentic source of cucked official western versions.. all it will take is western media claiming that it hurts their image to have non cucked versions in the west)

This is a horrible and counterproductive idea for other reasons as well. What are we even protecting? The west owns the mass export of media.. Why are we even protecting it again? This has nothing to do with tariffs or why we might need them as well. Keep this bullshit away from such sensitive and important issues.

These ghouls are relentless in chasing phantom potential money and viewers. They need to fuck off!

Yes the people who want shit for free adapted with the times. It's the 21st century. Now just admit there isn't a good way to keep people from stealing other peoples collections of 1's and 0's.

Not really stealing, you can't steal an intangible idea. It's why the entire ridiculous and fallacious concept of so-called "intellectual property" was imagined up. Remember, our legal system has no concept of ownership over such things.. it couldn't. CR is merely a temporary allowance given to creators to profit. To ensure the creation of more works. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the SOLE legal source or claim for their ability to sue for damages. Violating the protection isn't a crime either, it's a civil matter. People need to stop thinking of things ("IPs") in such incorrect and dangerous terms.

 

[I'mma real anime gurl]

As if the Bacha Bazi who run the DMCA farm needed a nuke to destroy this forum.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

It's funny how these people in their 80s are so out of touch. Just continously thinking they can just make up the thinnest of lies and think people will just be like "oh yeah totally".

This is very clearly about blocking forums and other internet avenues where non sanctioned speech live

It's not about protecting kids, it's not about protecting IPs of artists and creators or preventing piracy, it's not about journalism.

It's about censorship and shutting down places like kiwi farms

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

TorrentFreak: U.S. ISPs Want Retrospective Immunity in Pirate Site Blocking Bill (archive)

May 20, 2025 by Ernesto Van der Sar

At a recent Senate subcommittee hearing, the Motion Picture Association reiterated the need for a pirate site blocking regime in the United States. Behind the scenes, lawmakers and stakeholders appear to be progressing towards an agreed-upon position. One of the main roadblocks, according to Senator Coons, is that Internet providers are seeking retroactive immunity as part of a 'deal'.

After a decade of focusing on efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Domestic site blocking initiatives were shelved for over a decade in the U.S. following the SOPA backlash, but that hesitation appears to have evaporated.

With Representative Zoe Lofgren’s introduction of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) in February, the controversial mechanism of court-ordered blocking against foreign ‘pirate’ sites is no longer just a foreign issue. On the contrary, with more than one bill in the making, lawmakers and stakeholders are actively fleshing out the details.

MPA Spotlights Site Blocking at Senate Hearing​

Thus far, most of the work on these site blocking agreements has taken place behind closed doors. We know that ISPs are involved but none have commented on the matter in public. The same is true for rightsholders who, after the massive SOPA revolt, prefer private negotiations over demands in the public spotlight.

As a pioneer of site blocking efforts around the globe, it’s no secret that the Motion Picture Association (MPA) is in favor. And indeed, at a recent hearing at the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, the MPA’s Karyn Temple reiterated the need for a U.S. site-blocking system.

The MPA’s Senior Executive Vice President explained that pirate sites generate billions of visits a year by ‘stealing’ American films and TV series. These sites are not simple hobby projects, but commercial operations run by criminal groups from foreign countries.

“They are run not by individual teens in someone’s basement, but by sophisticated foreign criminal organizations who are involved in the most heinous criminal behavior you can imagine,” Temple said.

“And they are specifically designed to target American citizens, your constituents, for their personal and financial data and to expose them to malware and identity theft,”

American consumers are specifically targeted by these sites because they are lucrative victims, Temple said. Additionally, it is of course convenient that sites are not blocked in the U.S., unlike in 55 other countries, where blocking remedies are available.

ISPs Seek Retroactive Immunity​

The MPA’s testimony offers little fresh news. The group has shared similar views for several years now but this time around, it appears that progress is actually being made, albeit behind the scenes.

Democratic Senator Chris Coons, the recent recipient of an MPA Industry Champion Award, shared some new information during the hearing. He noted that “real progress” appears to have been made, while also identifying a previously undisclosed roadblock.

Discussions on potential site blocking legislation are taking place alongside a request from ISPs for both prospective and retrospective immunity. That basically boils down to a demand for an exemption on piracy liability, regardless of when any infringement took place.

“It finally feels like we’re making some real progress here on site blocking after years. One of the key roadblocks to getting a final deal is whether ISPs should benefit from immunity, both prospectively and retrospectively,” Senator Coons said.

Senator Coons

​

When asked to comment on the ISPs’ request, the MPA replied that this shouldn’t be much of a problem, as the immunity issue never led to any legal claims in other countries.

“ISPs have not routinely been sued for enforcing site blocking regimes. So, you know, I think in our experience, we don’t think that this is a provision that is necessary at all,” Temple replied.

U.S. Liability Lawsuits Against ISPs​

Temple is right that site blocking schemes haven’t triggered a wave of lawsuits abroad, but the ISPs may have another interest in retrospective immunity when it comes to piracy liability.

While details of their exact demands are unknown, it seems plausible that ISPs are seeking to limit the existing piracy liability lawsuits, where providers are sued for not taking appropriate action against repeat infringers.

These lawsuits involve many prominent ISPs, including Verizon and Cox. The latter was previously held liable for a billion dollars in damages and the ISP recently appealed to the Supreme Court to take on the matter.

With these cases in mind, it’s understandable that ISPs would like to make sure that, if new legislation passes, they wouldn’t find themselves worse off from a liability perspective.

Finish Line in Sight?​

Unfortunately, none of these site blocking ‘deal’ discussions between stakeholders are taking place in public. So, for now, we have to make do with the snippets that come out through hearings and other commentary.

That said, it’s starting to look like a U.S. site blocking scheme is closer to reality than ever before. At the hearing, Temple sounded confident that it could pass this session, which means a matter of months, not years.

“The MPA stands ready to work with you and all stakeholders to enact judicial site blocking this session. It’s time, finally, to get this legislation over the finish line,” Temple said.

---

The full video of the hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Intellectual Property that took place last week is available here.

 

[frozen_runner]

Piracy is a moral necessity.

 

[pikachudidnothingwrong]

TorrentFreak: U.S. ISPs Want Retrospective Immunity in Pirate Site Blocking Bill (archive)

FUUUCK.. This is them selling everyone else out.. Immunity for them at the price of no longer fighting back against this.

We have to stop this now!

This is the end of free net and western media/business gatekeeping of all media.

 

[Fagnacious D]

FUUUCK.. This is them selling everyone else out.. Immunity for them at the price of no longer fighting back against this.

We have to stop this now!

This is the end of free net and western media/business gatekeeping of all media.

It is the end. Slowly but surely internet freedom and privacy are being stripped away but now, the internet isn't united as it was back in the early 2010s. I just don't see a massive push backagainst laws like this happening again. The internet is very divided and very cucked. There are too many people who support censorship from so many different angles. Far too many faggots who want everything to be made sterile and "safe" because someone else might have a different opinion.
People want to censor the AI for multiple reasons. It can be used to violate copyrights or produce CP or generally any other advertiser unfriendly material. "Artists" hate it because it can be used to generate images better than they can draw or train off their artwork. They would definitely be willing to support any and all censorship that would aid them in stopping the AI and any "art thieves" even if it means establishing draconian censorship laws.
Payment processors control website revenue. If they think you're too spicy or are too much of a risk, they'll cut you off from most legitamate sources of money.
In the future, i would predict that blocking websites becomes very common for ISPs in first world countries. Blocking entire countries that don't play by whatever strict rules they set up would also be on the table. I wouldn't be surprised to see VPNs either taxed heavily or placed under very strict laws as well.

Adult websites are requiring ID in certain places in the US.
Apple is supporting some fairly restrictive law that will make people responsible for minors visiting their websites if they have any adult material on it (even user posted)

Outside of the US?
The Swiss want to ID pretty much anyone that connects to their ISPs
Telegram is surrendering pretty much all information to world governments.

There are a lot more examples out there.
I just wonder how much longer we have left.

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

TorrentFreak: Unveiled: New U.S. Anti-Piracy Bill ‘ACPA’ Proposes Alternative Site Blocking Path (archive)

June 5, 2025 by Ernesto Van der Sar

Republican House Representative Darrell Issa is working on the introduction of the 'American Copyright Protection Act' (ACPA), a new bill that would enable copyright holders to request site blocking orders against foreign pirate sites. A discussion draft shows that the proposed framework has key differences compared to the FADPA bill introduced by Rep. Lofgren earlier this year. Both bills target DNS resolvers, however, which has several tech companies worried.

After a decade of focusing efforts overseas, the push for website blocking has landed back on American shores.

Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced a new site blocking bill, titled: Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA).

With piracy blocking efforts expanding globally, the introduction of a U.S. site blocking bill was perhaps only a matter of time. But it took time. The new bill arrived more than thirteen years after the previous SOPA bill was shut down. Interestingly, however, the bill is not alone.

In addition to FADPA, Representative Darrell Issa is also working on his own version of a pirate site blocking bill. While it has yet to be formally introduced, a discussion draft framework seen by TorrentFreak lays out the intended framework in great detail.

It’s important to keep in mind that this is a preliminary draft of the framework, not the final bill. Several changes in the text may take place before it is formally introduced, if it’s introduced at all.

The American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA)​

The draft American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) proposes a streamlined court procedure for U.S. copyright owners to block access to foreign pirate sites, or those whose U.S. operators cannot be found after reasonable investigation.

​

The site blocking process would involve four phases. First, a court determines if a target website qualifies as a “foreign piracy site” based on evidence presented by a copyright owner. This evidence would include proof of ongoing copyright infringement, details of the site’s foreign ownership (or inability to find a U.S. operator), evidence that piracy is its primary purpose and it has no significant non-infringing purpose, or is marketed to induce infringement.

In the second phase, the court could issue a blocking order requiring service providers, such as ISPs and DNS resolvers, to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent U.S. users from accessing the target website. These orders would remain valid for up to 12 months but would not prescribe specific blocking technologies.

The draft outlines third and fourth stages which cover how a blocking order would be maintained and modified, if necessary. The deadline for implementing a blocking order would be set at 10 days, but copyright owners could request a shorter timeframe when targeting live events.

ACPA vs. FADPA​

The broad description of the new bill doesn’t differ much from the previously introduced FADPA legislation. Both target ISPs and DNS resolvers, for example, but there are several key differences and nuances.

For example, ACPA proposes that the Judicial Conference of the United States would maintain a list of specific district judges to hear all judicial piracy blocking cases, with at least one judge per regional circuit. Blocking requests would then go through the previously mentioned four-phase process.

​

The FADPA bill, on the other hand, relies on standard U.S. District Court jurisdiction and would establish a ‘preliminary order’ through a proposed Copyright Act amendment at section §502A.

The new ACPA draft further mentions that the Act would preempt state and local laws, with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) providing reports to Congress on the Act’s effectiveness and impact.

Transparency and Protections​

The draft also has some explicit transparency provisions. For example, it tasks the U.S. Copyright Office with maintaining a public website where all active blocking orders are listed. In addition, copyright owners must demonstrate they attempted to notify the target site’s operator and domain name registry of the infringement.

The proposed bill also places restrictions on the service providers that can be named in a blocking order, excluding those with fewer than 50,000 annual users or, for ISPs, those representing 1% or less of U.S. market share. Operators of coffee shops, libraries, universities, and other premises, would be excluded.

Finally, overblocking is addressed directly in the draft. While this should be prevented, if a third party’s site other than the pirate site was blocked due to an error caused by the copyright owner, the third party could request up to $250,000 in compensation from the copyright owner.

DNS ‘At Risk’​

Rep. Issa’s proposed framework excludes blocking measures against the root nameservers and TLD nameservers. Additionally, DNS resolvers providing services to fewer than 50,000 users annually would be exempt under the general exclusion for small providers. However, based on commentary in response to foreign DNS blocking efforts, the proposal can expect to meet some pushback.

Root nameservers excluded

​

This week, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2Coalition), which represents major tech companies including Amazon, Cloudflare, and Google, released a detailed report and website warning the public about DNS blocking threats.

DNS at Risk

​

The report details various examples of DNS blocking efforts around the world, including pirate site blocking actions in Italy, Spain, and France. According to Christian Dawson, Executive Director of the i2Coalition, the report is a wake-up call.

“DNS resolvers are neutral infrastructure—not censorship tools. When governments use them to enforce content policies, the result is overreach, disruption, and long-term harm to the open Internet.”

“We’ve built dnsatrisk.org to document these incidents and to help the global community push back with evidence and clarity,” Dawson adds.

Immunity & the DMCA​

Companies running DNS servers are not alone in their concerns. Internet providers will likely want to ensure that their concerns are heard too. Previously, we reported that ISPs would like to have retrospective immunity.

The discussion draft does indeed mention immunity when it comes to liability for any blocking related actions, plus immunity from copyright claims by rightsholders who request blocking orders, insofar these apply to the blocked sites.

“A named service provider in a blocking order that is implementing the order in good faith is immune from all claims of copyright infringement by the copyright owner who obtained the blocking order based specifically on allegedly infringing activity on the foreign piracy site occurring on or after the date when the blocking order was issued, or when the provider was added to the order after issuance (whichever is later).”

The proposed immunity would not carry over to other claims of copyright infringement, meaning there would be no impact on the subscriber-related piracy liability lawsuits currently faced by Internet providers such as Cox and Verizon.

The draft framework explicitly and clearly states that the bill would not affect any existing DMCA liability claims, nor would it impact DMCA safe harbor protections.

“Except as expressly stated in this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed to change or affect any determination under the DMCA, or modify or expand any existing claims, liability, or immunity under the DMCA, including the scope, protection, and requirements for any safe harbor under section 512. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to provide for any new liability or immunity with respect to the DMCA or any other provision of law outside of this Act.”

Although it’s still unclear what type of retrospective immunity ISPs are looking for, the draft framework doesn’t provide any additional detail.

Overall, the discussion draft describes a well-thought-out plan, with some important transparency provisions and accountability for overblocking. That said, the inclusion of DNS providers and potentially ‘other intermediaries’ is already causing opposition before the final text is ready.

 

[pikachudidnothingwrong]

People need to get loud on this. ISPs and other tech companies are trying to sell us out for their own protections, not directly fighting it.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

It's about censorship and shutting down places like kiwi farms

Not everything is about you buddy

 

[UselessRubberKeyboard]

So, is this going to be Russell Greer’s next outing? I can see the daft bastard trying to insert himself into this somehow, especially if any of it ends up in the court system. He’d be all over something like this if it meant getting rid of the meanie-poo Kiwi Orchards and their documenting what a woman-hating asshole he is (or and some convenient copyright thing).

 

[Curzon Dax-sama]

It's never enough for these fake, gay, retarded corporate parasites.

 

[Yamaha YM2612]

Not everything is about you buddy

Um...I know?

Did you quote me by accident?

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

TorrentFreak: ICANN’s DNS Blocking Report Presents Three Key Recommendations (archive)

June 9, 2025 by Andy Maxwell

ICANN, the organization responsible for ensuring the stability of the internet's Domain Name System (DNS), has published advice for all entities involved in DNS blocking. Three key recommendations arrive as part of a comprehensive report from ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) on the technical means of DNS blocking and its effects - both intended and unintended.

In 2006 alone, Russia-based AllOfMP3 reportedly banked $30 million from sales of an unauthorized music product for which the major labels received no payment.

The unlikely stage for the industry’s response to global sales of cheap, unlicensed DRM-free music, was Denmark. Under pressure from industry group IFPI, ISP Tele2 blocked AllofMP3’s domain, an event that will soon celebrate its 20th anniversary.

While never likely to threaten the site’s overall traffic, the Danish block was at once symbolic and historic. Nineteen years later, Denmark has almost 2,800 domains on its current blocklist, a figure that’s easily eclipsed by the tens of thousands of domains and subdomains blocked globally every month, largely without report or fanfare.

ICANN Publishes DNS Blocking Report​

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the non-profit organization whose management of the internet’s name and number spaces (domains and DNS / IP addresses) helps to provide a stable internet. In a recently published report, ICANN provides a comprehensive view of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the effects of its antithesis: DNS blocking.

Published by ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), ‘DNS Blocking Revisited’ aims to raise awareness among all internet users, but especially those whose decisions can make a real difference. For those considering DNS blocking as a potential solution, to the authorities with the power to permit or deny its use, ICANN’s message is clear. Full comprehension of the potential repercussions of DNS blocking is a prerequisite to limiting harm.

“The aim of this report is to advise the Internet community, and especially policymakers and government officials, of the implications and consequences of using DNS blocking to control access to resources on the Internet,” the report begins.

“DNS blocking can have serious side effects. A block may affect users outside the jurisdiction of the party doing the blocking. Users may not know that a block is in place, and can interpret it as a site outage or other error, encouraging potentially insecure behavior to ‘fix’ it. A block may affect domains that provide services for other domains, causing collateral damage beyond the intended scope of the block.”

Motivation and Expectation​

ICANN takes no position on whether DNS blocking is good or bad, or whether specific motivations to block tip the scales one way or another. Whether supported by local law, justified on morality grounds, or mandated by governments purely for the purpose of censorship, the report focuses on the technical aspects of DNS blocking, the consequences, and advice to limit harm.

The report defines DNS blocking as an approach to regulating or restricting access to information on the internet by interfering with the normal process of responding to DNS queries about domain names or IP addresses.

This is usually achieved by “denying that a name or address exists or by providing false information about it.”

​

While easy to implement, DNS blocking is only effective against users of the DNS where blocking is implemented, and has no effect on the existence of the targeted content, which remains accessible by alternative means.

These limitations should be well understood since they help to determine whether DNS blocking can fulfil the stated objectives. Having weighed the benefits and considered the implications, DNS blocking may not be needed at all.

“It is important that any entity mandating or implementing DNS blocking understands the implications of the technology. For example, DNS blocking in one jurisdiction can affect the accessibility of content in another jurisdiction. Legal authorities should form technically informed views about DNS blocking, and understand if, or the extent to which, DNS blocking may accomplish their goals and how it may affect parties outside their jurisdictions,” the report adds.

Bad DNS Blocking is Bad​

DNS blocking often amounts to the protection of business interests, yet blocking for security reasons is encountered by millions of internet users every day. They include shielding minors from harmful or adult content, use of domain blocklists by major web browsers to warn users about unsafe sites, and DNS filtering to prevent exposure to malicious domains. An example cited by ICANN suggests that DNS blocking may even be a less restrictive alternative to avoid the global consequences of suspending an entire domain name.

Yet, regardless of motivation, DNS blocking measures of any kind should have clearly defined scope.

“While one jurisdiction may find that it is allowable and desirable to block a domain name, another jurisdiction may consider blocking that domain to be a violation of human or civil rights,” ICANN says.

The report highlights legal action by rightsholders against Quad9 and Cloudflare. Where DNS blocking by ISPs targets a specific, clearly defined local ‘audience’, DNS blocking at public resolvers used by a global audience risks overblocking on a much bigger scale.

In a case involving Quad9, a court order to block specific sites on copyright grounds offered no guidance on key technical issues, leaving Quad9 to block the sites globally, to avoid being held in contempt.

DNS Blocking Weakens The Battle Against Security Threats​

ICANN’s report highlights issues involving internet security that are either caused or exacerbated by DNS blocking measures. For example, redirects due to DNS blocking can cause browser TLS errors that ordinarily signal a potential security threat. ICANN suggests that over exposure effectively ‘trains’ users to ignore certificate mismatches.

In the wider fight against global threat actors, DNS block circumvention reduces visibility of both traffic patterns and security threats.

“DNS data gives Internet Service Providers (ISPs) an important and accurate picture of both traffic patterns and security threats on their networks,” ICANN reports, adding that DNS data can help ISPs diagnose denial-of-service attacks, identify infected hosts, compromised domains, and vulnerable customers.

“When users turn to alternative DNS servers, some network operators, ISPs, and enterprises may experience decreased ability to manage security threats and manage certain network operations. For example, if a user accesses the third party recursive resolver via an encrypted connection using DNS over HTTPS (DoH) or DNS over TLS (DoT) and is infected with malware, the user’s ISP may not be able to detect that and notify the infected user, since DNS telemetry is being diverted away from the ISP.”

Disclosure, Transparency, Blocking Infrastructure​

While reduced visibility of threats is cited as a concern, the view of DNS blocking itself is often obscured by a lack of disclosure and limited transparency.

“[DNS] blocking policies and actions are often not disclosed to affected parties, including to end users. This can make it difficult for end-users to understand when they are being blocked, or why,” ICANN warns.

“Absent some level of transparency, DNS blocking can be difficult to recognize for what it is. It can be misdiagnosed as a hosting outage, a misconfiguration, or a malicious attack.”

Before concluding with ICANN’s recommendations, an issue touched on briefly in the report but worth highlighting again, concerns the construction and embedding of online infrastructure to facilitate blocking of piracy, fraud, ransomware, and botnets.

Citing a 2023 open letter written by TCP/IP co-developer Vinton Cerf, “Concerns Over DNS Blocking” warns that the same infrastructure could be easily adapted “to suppress internal dissent, censor outside information, and surveil dissidents and journalists.”

ICANN Recommendations​

Listed here verbatim are three rock-solid recommendations from ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee.

Recommendation 1: SSAC recommends that any entity implementing or mandating DNS blocking understand the implications of the technology.

Recommendation 2: SSAC recommends that DNS blocking implemented by any entity — by a government or any organization that has policy, legal, or operational control over a network or service—follow these guidelines:

A. The entity should determine whether DNS blocking will fulfill its objectives.
B. The entity should have a clear policy about what and how it will block, with well-defined review and decision-making processes that minimize risk.
C. The entity should implement the policy using a technique that minimizes overblocking or collateral damage that could affect its users.
D. The entity should not affect networks or users outside its administrative control.

Recommendation 3: SSAC recommends that operators of recursive servers use DNS Extended Error codes (see section 6.6 Extended DNS Error) to indicate to end users and troubleshooters that DNS blocking is taking place

The report DNS Blocking Revisited is available here (pdf)