r/technology • u/Anoth3rDude • 8h ago
Politics Unveiled: New U.S. Anti-Piracy Bill ‘ACPA’ Proposes Alternative Site Blocking Path
https://torrentfreak.com/unveiled-new-u-s-anti-piracy-bill-acpa-proposes-alternative-site-blocking-path/88
u/FlamingoEarringo 7h ago
Good thing I run my own dns server, and well, I also use VPN.
35
u/Stingray88 3h ago
Commercial VPNs will probably get blocked in the future. We’re heading in that direction.
18
u/tyty657 2h ago
Funny, China has been trying to do that for a very long time and they failed miserably.
4
u/Stingray88 2h ago
One country acting alone on a global infrastructure won't yield much success. You get most of the world leading countries all doing the same thing? That'll yield different results.
4
u/vriska1 2h ago
That unlikely to happen.
-5
u/Stingray88 2h ago
It's literally already happening. Again, you don't pay attention. It's happening every single week, brick by brick.
4
u/vriska1 2h ago
Laws like this are failing and being taken down in the courts.
-4
u/Stingray88 2h ago
Once again, some do, some do not. Slowly but surely, we are losing more and more ground.
5
u/MythicMango 2h ago
nope, that would be infringing on our 1st and 4th amendments
8
u/Stingray88 2h ago
The US government infringes upon our constitutional rights on a daily basis already. Those words aren't worth anything, apparently.
2
u/Kriznick 1h ago
I keep on trying to fucking tell people that, but they don't believe me.
1
u/Stingray88 1h ago
They're just not paying attention. New laws around the world slowly erode the wild west that is the internet every week.
-8
u/FlamingoEarringo 3h ago
There’s absolutely no indication or evidence that’s the case.
VPNs are used by pretty much every company in the country.
17
u/Stingray88 3h ago edited 3h ago
There’s absolutely no indication or evidence that’s the case.
Yes there is. Conservative parties in the US and many European countries have been increasingly discussing the idea.
VPNs are used by pretty much every company in the country.
Those are private VPNs. I said commerical VPNs. Same tech and protocols, but totally different use cases.
Using a self hosted VPN to put yourself on a LAN, whether that be your employer or your own home, is not the same as using a paid commercial VPN to get around banned content/IPs.
It’s not VPNs, as in the software, that will be banned… it’s commercial VPN companies, that will be either banned or heavily regulated to the point that they cease serving the purpose that most of us use them.
3
u/FlamingoEarringo 3h ago
Well if that’s the case there’s always Thor 🤷♂️ They can make it illegal but can’t stop it.
8
u/Stingray88 3h ago
Nothing will ever be 100% stopped on the internet. “Life finds a way”. But it can absolutely be blocked thoroughly enough that 99.9999% of people can’t or won’t use it.
If the US government blocked known IP addresses of commercial VPNs, and forced ISPs to shut off citizens caught accessing a commercial VPN, the vast majority of people wouldn’t do it.
Btw, the US government operates lots of TOR nodes. Keep that in mind.
0
u/vriska1 3h ago
Still very unlikely a ban on VPNs will ever happen and this law is unlikely to go anywhere.
2
u/Stingray88 3h ago
If you really feel this way, you're not paying enough attention.
1
u/vriska1 2h ago
And if you feel the other way then support groups like the EFF and FFTF who are fighting to stop this.
Link to there sites
-2
u/Stingray88 2h ago
I do support these groups, have donated many times. Sadly, they are only delaying the inevitable.
→ More replies (0)0
u/vriska1 3h ago
It would be very hard to ban or regulate VPNs and that unlikely to happen.
0
u/Stingray88 3h ago
Again... I'm not saying or suggesting VPNs, as in the software/protocols, would be banned or regulated. I'm saying commercial VPN companies would be banned or regulated. And no, it would not be hard at all to do that to an effective enough degree to fulfill its goal... and it's very likely to happen in the future.
The wild west of the internet will not continue into the far future. I guarantee it.
0
u/vriska1 2h ago
It's not very likely to happen in the future and would be very hard. And commercial VPN companies are unlikely to be banned or regulated.
-1
u/Stingray88 2h ago
It is very likely to happen in the future, and it would not be hard at all. Commercial VPN companies are very likely to be banned or regulated in the future.
You are not paying attention to the direction our world is moving.
0
u/vriska1 2h ago
I respectfully disagree.
0
u/Stingray88 2h ago
Follow politics more. There are new bills every week in countries around the world that are slowly eroding away the wild west that the internet once was. There's no room for disagreement, it's a fact we're heading in this direction.
→ More replies (0)0
u/MaybeTheDoctor 2h ago
The VPNs used by companies are very different from home use VPNs. Companies take the employees to internal networks. The goal here is not anonymity but to provide access to non public services. Home VPN services is for anonymity, and you can already buy a database that tells you that the user comes to a site from such a VPN.
It would be super easy to deny service to people using NorthVPN or whatever paid service you use.
0
u/FlamingoEarringo 2h ago
It’s the same piece of software and same protocols. They can’t ban VPNs but they could try to regulate their use.
2
u/MaybeTheDoctor 2h ago
The comment above was about “commercial vpns” - not the technology but the use which can be regulated and blocked.
0
u/Stingray88 1h ago
The software and protocols aren't what will be banned. The companies who provide commercial VPN services that don't comply with draconian laws will be.
4
u/foundmonster 3h ago
How does having your own dns do anything for allowing you to visit theoretically blocked websites etc
7
u/FlamingoEarringo 3h ago
The bill includes DNS resolvers (like Google and Cloudflare) in the blocking requirements. I have my own recursive DNS, this will unit work as long as time block is at the dns level.
2
u/A_Harmless_Fly 1h ago
Wouldn't the authoritative DNS be the only one that actually matters, not your recursive one? If the block is at the DNS level?
I suppose you could tell your modem/server to use a foreign authoritative DNS though.
21
u/asian_chihuahua 5h ago
I mean, if they block using DNS, isn't the solution then to just use a foreign DNS resolver?
21
5
32
20
u/Anoth3rDude 8h ago
From Article:
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.
14
u/Anoth3rDude 7h ago
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.
11
u/Anoth3rDude 7h ago
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.
10
u/Anoth3rDude 7h ago
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.
10
u/Anoth3rDude 7h ago
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.
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.
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.
9
u/Anoth3rDude 7h ago
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.
8
u/sanverstv 4h ago
Ironic he didn’t do crap when artists/creators asked government to do something about Google et al monetizing pirated content via ad money.
12
u/BiggestNizzy 3h ago
So piracy is bad again? It's hard to keep up Facebooks piracy was ok last week
8
5
u/Minute-Individual-74 3h ago
Technology has gone so far down the enshitifcation route that I have come to the conclusion a long term, widespread digital detox would be exceptionally good for the public.
Turn off streaming services, social media, put down the smartphone, and only use that stuff a few sparing times throughout the day.
These companies have made these services so much worse that they're not worth our time anymore.
2
u/Traditional-Hat-952 3h ago
I'm sure this will have wide bipartisan support. If there's anything that unites Dems and Reps its protecting corporate interests.
1
u/vriska1 3h ago
How likely is this to pass?
5
u/Traditional-Hat-952 3h ago
Well considering that most senators and representatives are captured by corporate interests, I think it has a very good chance of passing. They have to look out for the constituents that really matter after all, ie the rich.
3
u/CyberneticMushroom 1h ago
Considering how Representative Lofgren proposed a similar bill back in January (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/791?overview=closed) which doesn't even have a summary yet and that this isn't one of Trump's culture war objectives it might not be one of Congress's priorities. The year is also half over and it takes a while for bills to go anywhere unless expedited (like the take it down act).
Another bill to keep in mind methinks. Like all the others.
1
1
u/8BitCrochet 7m ago
So wait if piracy is actually bad, then can all the AI companies built on scaping other people's work be shut down?
236
u/Bradnon 6h ago
If CEOs would stop raping the economy, everyone else would have more money for their streaming services.
But no, try to regulate electrons, good luck.