US Gov Pushes New Site Blocking Bill (ACPA) Despite Opposition

The U.S. government is making another attempt at internet site blocking legislation.

House Representative Darrell Issa is developing the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA), which would allow copyright holders to request court orders blocking access to foreign pirate websites. This was first introduced back in February of this year.

Two Bills Target Different Approaches

This new bill follows Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) introduced earlier this year. Both proposals target DNS resolvers and internet service providers, but they take different paths to achieve site blocking.

The ACPA draft outlines a four-phase court process. First, courts would determine if a website qualifies as a “foreign piracy site” based on evidence of ongoing copyright violations.

Second, judges could issue blocking orders requiring ISPs and DNS resolvers to prevent U.S. users from accessing targeted sites.

Tech Companies Express Strong Concerns

Major technology companies are already pushing back against these proposals. The Internet Infrastructure Coalition, representing Amazon, Cloudflare, and Google, released a report warning about DNS blocking threats.

“DNS resolvers are neutral infrastructure—not censorship tools,” said Christian Dawson, Executive Director of the coalition.

The group launched dnsatrisk.org to document global DNS blocking incidents and their negative effects.

This opposition echoes concerns from over a decade ago when the controversial SOPA bill was defeated.

Key Protections and Transparency

The proposed legislation includes protections for smaller service providers. Companies with fewer than 50,000 annual users would be exempt from blocking orders. Coffee shops, libraries, universities, and similar venues would also be protected.

The ACPA draft includes transparency requirements, such as maintaining a public website listing all active blocking orders. Copyright owners must prove they attempted to notify target sites before requesting blocks.

Immunity Questions Remain

The draft mentions immunity for blocking-related actions but doesn’t address broader concerns from internet providers.

The framework states it wouldn’t affect existing DMCA liability claims or safe harbor protections.

However, ISPs facing ongoing subscriber piracy lawsuits may seek additional legal shields that aren’t included in the current draft.

And to make matters worse we have anti-piracy groups like the MPA pushing for automated site blocking systems.

Final Thoughts

These site blocking proposals raise serious questions about internet freedom and government overreach.

While supporters argue they’re needed to combat foreign piracy, critics worry about creating censorship tools that could be misused.

The bigger issue remains unaddressed: what about domestic pirate sites?

U.S. authorities struggle to handle copyright violations within their own borders, making international enforcement even more challenging. Until Congress addresses these problems, site blocking bills may create more issues than they solve.

For more information on this story refer to the report from TorrentFreak. You can also refer to the website of Darrell Issa for more updates on this bill.

We want to know your thoughts. What do you think about this story? Let us know in the comment section below!

Be sure to stay up-to-date with the latest streaming news, reviews, tips, and more by following the TROYPOINT Advisor with updates weekly.