California Rep. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act To Block Sites Infringing On U.S. Copyrights
U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Dem-CA) has introduced H.R. 791, the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (or FADPA), to prevent foreign-run piracy sites from exploiting loopholes in U.S. law. The Act sets site-blocking laws that require U.S. internet providers to make 'a good faith effort' to disable access to pirate websites.
Lofgren is Ranking Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and a senior member of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet. After working for over a year with the tech, film, and television industries, she said, '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.'
More from Deadline
Global Industry Group ACE Announces Shutdown Of Fmovies, Deemed "World's Largest Piracy Ring"
Operators Of Jetflicks, An Illegal Streaming Service With A Catalog Larger Than Netflix, Prime Video And Hulu Put Together, Convicted By Federal Jury
Indonesia Clamps Down On Piracy Of Streamer Vidio's Content On Telegram
Foreign digital piracy, she adds, presents a 'massive and growing threat,' costing American jobs, harming the creative community, and exposing consumers to dangerous security risks. The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act is a targeted approach that focuses on safety and intellectual property, while simultaneously upholding due process, respecting free speech, and ensuring enforcement is narrowly focused.
'Compromise is often found when you sit and hash out policy recommendations with the workers, companies, and users directly involved, and I appreciate the support from the tech and content communities in this effort. I look forward to continuing to work with Chairmen Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan on anti-piracy measures in the near future,' Lofgren said.
Rep. Issa (R-CA) is the Republican chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.
Trade groups applauded the bill with the Motion Picture Association noting that intellectual property theft drains at least $30 billion and 230,000 jobs from the U.S. economy each year. It said more than 55 countries including Canada, the UK and Australia have tools in place similar to those proposed by Rep. Lofgren that have successfully reduced piracy's harms while protecting consumer access to legal content.
'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,' said MPA chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin.
Jean Prewitt, president and CEO of the Independent Film & Television Alliance, said foreign copyright piracy is also a grave problem for independent film producers. 'Site blocking legislation is badly needed to protect U.S. creators from industrial-strength theft of their films and programs by foreign bad actors, who are outside the reach of U.S. legal jurisdiction.'
'We also look forward to working with … Chair Darrell Issa as he leads a bi -partisan effort, working with Rep. Lofgren and other members to craft a legislative solution to deal with foreign copyright piracy and protect our industry and U.S. economic productivity,' she said.
The American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), the Authors Guild, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE),the Copyright Alliance, and the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), and leading technology policy think tanks, ITIF, also backed the bill.
Background on the issue Lofgren's office provided, citing research, said that in 2019, U.S.-produced television episodes and movies were illegally streamed or downloaded, respectively, 126.7 billion and 26.6 billion times. By 2022, global visits to movie and TV piracy sites reached 191.8 billion, costing the U.S. economy $29.2 billion annually and threatening more than 230,000 American jobs in entertainment, technology, and small businesses.
Today, it said, some illegal foreign online pirate sites are bigger than some of the biggest legit U.S. streaming services. One piracy site hit 364 million visits in October of 2024, which was larger than Disney+ viewership in that same month. Live sports are also a prime target, with piracy draining $28 billion annually from the global sports industry.
'Past U.S. efforts to curb piracy failed because they lacked due process, threatened free speech, and provided overly-broad enforcement powers that risked harming legitimate websites and the open internet,' the announcement said.
That's certainly what some felt about Obama-era legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), which lawmakers quickly walked back after facing a really furious onslaught by the U.S. tech industry.
Today is the first time legislators have really dared to touched the issue of digital piracy since then.
'A decade ago, I was at the center of the successful effort to prevent the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) from becoming law. That was not because I support copyright infringement, but because I support the open internet. Lofgren said. She said the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act takes a better approach.
It protects service providers from legal liability. ISPs, DNS providers, and other intermediaries are shielded from lawsuits 'as long as they comply in good faith' with court-ordered blocking measures. The good faith element could make enforcement messy but it's a start.
As per the famous (or infamous) Section 230 of Telecommunications Act of the late 1990s, service providers are not responsible for content on their platforms, with very few exceptions. A 2018 law under the Trump Administration did legally prohibit sex trafficking sites. Providers tend to cry slippery slope and the end of free speech at any carve-out to their Section 230 freedom, which courts have mostly respected.
Other highlights of the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act:
It only targets large-scale, foreign-run piracy sites.
It respects First Amendment rights. Every blocking order must go through a U.S. court, requiring clear evidence, due process, and judicial oversight to ensure fair enforcement and prevent censorship. Courts must first verify that any site-blocking order does not interfere with access to lawful material before issuing an order.
It allows for feasible tech solutions. Unlike past proposals, the bill does not mandate specific technical measures for blocking. Instead, it allows service providers to determine the best, least intrusive methods to comply with court orders.
It provides a narrowly-tailored blocking mechanism limited to piracy sites that exist solely to infringe copyrights.
Best of Deadline
How to Watch The 67th Annual Grammy Awards Online And With Cable
2025 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Oscars, Spirits, Grammys, Tonys, Guilds & More
The 2025 Oscars: Everything We Know So Far About The Nominations, Ceremony, Date & Host
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lopez: Why this overheated invasion of L.A. looks so ugly and feels so personal
I was driving while listening to the news Sunday when I heard House Speaker Mike Johnson justify President Trump's move to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles. 'We have to maintain the rule of law,' Johnson said. I almost swerved off the road. Maintain the rule of law? Trump pardoned the hooligans who ransacked the Capitol because he lost the 2020 presidential election. They clashed with police, destroyed property and threatened the lives of public officials, and to Trump, they're heroes. Maintain the rule of law? Trump is a 34-count felon who has defied judicial rulings, ignored laws that don't serve his interests, and turned his current presidency into an unprecedented adventure in self-dealing and graft. And now he's sending an invading army to Los Angeles, creating a crisis where there was none. Arresting undocumented immigrants with criminal records is one thing, but is that what this is about? Or is it about putting on a show, occupying commercial and residential neighborhoods and arresting people who are looking for — or on their way to — work. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that U.S. Marines were on high alert and ready to roll, and in the latest of who knows how many escalations, hundreds are headed our way. What next, the Air Force? I'm not going to defend the vandalism and violence — which plays into Trump's hands—that followed ICE arrests in Los Angeles. I can see him sitting in front of the tube, letting out a cheer every time another "migrant criminal" flings a rock or a scooter at a patrol car. But I am going to defend Los Angeles and the way things work here. For starters, undocumented immigration is not the threat to public safety or the economy that Trump like to bloviate about. It's just that he knows he can score points on border bluster and on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), so he's going full gasbag on both, and now he's threatening to lock up Gov. Gavin Newsom. Read more: Reopen Alcatraz as a prison? Yes, but Trump shouldn't stop there To hear the rhetoric, you'd think every other undocumented immigrant is a gang member and that trans athletes will soon dominate youth sports if someone doesn't stand up to them. I can already read the mail that hasn't yet arrived, so let me say in advance that I do indeed understand that breaking immigration law means breaking the law, and I believe that President Biden didn't do enough to control the border, although it was Republicans who killed a border security bill early last year. I also acknowledge the cost of supporting undocumented immigrants is substantial when you factor in public education and, in California, medical care, which is running billions of dollars beyond original estimates. But the economic contributions of immigrants — regardless of legal status — are undeniably numerous, affecting the price we pay for everything from groceries to healthcare to domestic services to construction to landscaping. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that a surge in immigrants since 2021 — including refugees, asylum seekers and others, legal and illegal — had lifted the U.S. economy "by filling otherwise vacant jobs," as The Times reported, and "pumping millions of tax dollars into state, local and federal coffers." According to a seminal 2011 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, 'many illegal immigrants pay Social Security and other taxes but do not collect benefits, and they are not eligible for many government services." In addition, the report said: 'Political controversies aside, when illegal immigrants come, many U.S. employers are ready to hire them. The vast majority work. Estimates suggest that at least 75 percent of adult illegal immigrants are in the workforce.' Trump can rail against the lunatic radical left for the scourge of illegal immigration, but the statement that 'employers are ready to hire them' couldn't be more true. And those employers stand on both sides of the political aisle, as do lawmakers who for decades have allowed the steady flow of workers to industries that would suffer without them. Read more: What happened during three days of protests over immigration raids in downtown L.A. On Sunday, I had to pick up a couple of items at the Home Depot on San Fernando Road in Glendale, where dozens of day laborers often gather in search of work. But there were only a couple of men out there, given recent headlines. A shopper in the garden section said the report of federal troops marching on L.A. is "kind of ridiculous, right?" He said the characterization by Trump of "all these terrible people" and "gang members" on the loose was hard to square with the reality of day laborers all but begging for work. I found one of them in a far corner of the Home Depot lot, behind a fence. He told me he was from Honduras and was afraid to risk arrest by looking for work at a time when battalions of masked troops were on the move, but he's got a hungry family back home, including three kids. He said he was available for any kind of jobs, including painting, hauling and cleanup. Two men in a pickup truck told me they were undocumented too and available for construction jobs of any type. They said they were from Puebla, Mexico, but there wasn't enough work for them there. I've been to Puebla, a city known for its roughly 300 churches. I was passing through about 20 years ago on my way to a small nearby town where almost everyone on the street was female. Where were the men? I was told by a city official that the local economy was all about corn, but local growers couldn't compete with American farmers who had the benefit of federal subsidies. So the men had gone north for work. Another reason people head north is to escape the violence wrought by cartels armed with American-made weapons, competing to serve the huge American appetite for drugs. In these ways, and more, the flow of people across borders can be complicated. But generally speaking, it's simply about survival. People move to escape poverty or danger. They move in search of something better for themselves, or to be more accurate about it, for their children. The narratives of those journeys are woven into the fabric of Los Angeles. It's part of what's messy and splendid and complicated about this blended, imperfect corner of the world, where many of us know students or workers or families with temporary status, or none at all. That's why this overheated invasion looks so ugly and feels so personal. We're less suspicious of our neighbors and the people we encounter on our daily rounds than the hypocrites who would pardon insurrectionists, sow division and send an occupying army to haul away members of our community. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State employees' civil service protections in doubt as constitutional amendment advances
Louisiana lawmakers may life restrictions on gifts for elected officials and government employees. (Photo by Greg LaRose/Louisiana Illuminator) A proposed constitutional amendment to dismantle a 73-year-old civil service system created to stop politically-influenced job placements in Louisiana government was narrowly approved Monday in the state House of Representatives. Senate Bill 8, sponsored by Sen. Jay Morris. R-West Monroe, cleared the chamber in a 70-28 vote, reaching the very minimum two-thirds support required to put constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot. The measure will return to the Senate for a final vote on some House amendments and. If approved, it will go before voters in the Nov. 3, 2026, election. Confusion over the bill that many hoped would be cleared up only deepened Monday, specifically on whether the proposal would apply only to future state employee hires or if it could be used to remove existing state employees. Morris' bill would change the Louisiana Constitution to give state lawmakers power that currently rests with the Civil Service Commission, a seven-member independent review panel that oversees the hiring, promotion and firing of 28,000 'classified' state workers. The commission, working with state agencies on staffing goals, has the power to create and eliminate job positions and decide which jobs should have a protected classified status and which should not. Classified employees enjoy some degree of protection against politically-motivated or otherwise unfair terminations and disciplinary practices because they have the right to appeal such decisions to the Civil Service Commission, which has the final say on staffing matters for most state agencies. In a previous interview and during committee hearings on the bill, Morris said his bill would allow the legislature to designate classified state employees as unclassified, meaning they could be fired at will. But several changes to the legislation's text and its proposed ballot language have raised questions about whether current state employees will be at risk of losing their jobs. Presenting the bill on the House floor Monday, Rep. Beau Beaullieu, R-New Iberia, repeatedly assured his colleagues the proposal would apply only to future hires. He based his assurances on the argument that the amendment allows only for job positions to become unclassified, not employees. If the Legislature were to unclassify a job position, any state employees currently holding those positions would not be affected, he said. Beaullieu's argument didn't land with several lawmakers opposed to the measure. Rep. Matt Willard, D-New Orleans, reading from the text of the proposal, asked why the ballot language specifically indicates the amendment applies to 'officers, positions and employees' – a phrase that appears twice in the bill. Caught off-guard by Willard's question, Beaullieu couldn't explain the discrepancy, referring questions to Morris, the bill's author. In a later interview, Morris would not offer any assurances as to whether existing classified employees would get to keep their protections. 'Obviously, only employees can be unclassified,' Morris said. 'Positions are employees. You can't unclassify them if somebody's not working.' Morris also refused to say if his intention is for the amendment to apply only to future hires. 'It's not gonna apply to anybody unless we pass a law,' he said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
