Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Blocking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House subcommittee hearing presses for judicial site‑blocking to curb offshore piracy
Summary
Industry and enforcement witnesses told a House subcommittee that offshore piracy and counterfeit networks cost U.S. creators billions and fuel broader criminal activity, and they urged Congress to adopt judicial site‑blocking and stronger cross‑border enforcement with guardrails to protect speech and infrastructure.
A House subcommittee hearing on piracy and artificial intelligence focused on pushing new tools to block offshore pirate sites and disrupt organized online counterfeit networks.
Industry witnesses said piracy now distributes near‑perfect digital copies from outside U.S. reach, siphoning revenue that funds residuals, pensions and new productions. Chris Floyd, counsel to Amblin Entertainment, said studios and local economies suffer: "When we find Disclosure Day online, we have limited recourse," and urged adoption of judicial site‑blocking used in other countries.
Steve Francis, founder of IP House and a former federal IP enforcement official, described large, organized networks behind piracy and counterfeits and recommended both civil tools (including Schedule A litigation against anonymous foreign sellers) and court‑ordered access restrictions for U.S. internet providers. "Criminal networks now exploit the speed, scale, and anonymity of the internet to steal IP and endanger consumers on a global scale," he said.
Witnesses and several lawmakers cited foreign examples where blocking orders reduced piracy traffic and boosted legal services. Industry witnesses pointed to Portugal (traffic down), Australia (traffic decreased) and the UK (greater use of legal services) as evidence that targeted blocking can work when paired with precise technical methods and judicial process.
At the same time, technology and trade groups urged caution and listed guardrails they view as essential. Christopher Moore of the Software & Information Industry Association said site‑blocking proposals must include adversarial judicial testing, precise targeting to avoid sweeping shared infrastructure, strong good‑faith safe harbors for complying providers and no single government‑mandated technical method.
Members asked detailed legal and technical questions: Rep. Klein asked whether site‑blocking is a cleaner remedy after the Supreme Court narrowed intermediary liability in Cox‑era decisions; witnesses said the remedy can be effective but depends on statutory guardrails to limit over‑blocking and to protect legitimate services. Rep. Lofrren and others discussed pending bills described in the hearing, including the so‑called FADPA (foreign anti‑digital piracy act) concept the chair cited as a possible legislative vehicle.
Beyond blocking, witnesses pressed for resources and cross‑border cooperation. Several witnesses urged more federal support for state and local enforcement task forces and for new civil remedies that can freeze assets and follow money flows tied to piracy operations.
The chairman closed by saying the committee intends to press forward with legislation, soliciting follow‑up responses from witnesses and signaling a short legislative window to advance compromise language. The hearing produced no formal votes; it focused on evidence and policy options toward a legislative fix.
