Lawmakers Introduce Site-Blocking Legislation To Curb Foreign-Digital Piracy
US lawmakers from both parties have introduced the DEFEND IP Act, which would allow copyright holders to seek court orders requiring internet providers to block access to major foreign piracy websites. The proposal aims to give studios, producers and other creators a new legal tool against large-scale online piracy, including unauthorised live broadcasts from abroad.
A judge would decide whether a site has no commercially significant purpose beyond copyright infringement, with designations renewable after 360 days. Blocking measures would need to be technically feasible, effective and unlikely to disrupt lawful content, while applicants would have to show likely irreparable harm; broadband providers oppose the bill, citing legal risks, mirror sites, VPNs and concerns about predicted infringement.
- Bipartisan lawmakers propose court-ordered blocking of foreign piracy sites.
- Judges would assess sites and renew designations every 360 days.
- Broadband providers warn of legal, technical and free-content risks.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Creators and copyright holders face genuine harm from large-scale foreign piracy operations that generate commercial revenue through systematic infringement. The legislation includes meaningful safeguards—judicial oversight, technical feasibility requirements, evidence of irreparable harm, and annual renewals—designed to prevent overreach and ensure blocking targets sites with no legitimate purpose. Giving rights holders a court-sanctioned enforcement tool is a proportionate response to industrial-scale theft that current laws inadequately address, particularly for live broadcasts and other time-sensitive content.
The case against
Internet service providers would shoulder substantial legal liability and operational burden whilst copyright holders reap enforcement benefits without bearing the cost or risk. Site-blocking is technically ineffective against determined users who employ mirrors and VPNs, making compliance an onerous requirement with limited payoff. More fundamentally, establishing court-ordered blocking powers sets a troubling precedent by repositioning internet infrastructure as an enforcement arm rather than neutral conduit, creating pathway for expansion beyond piracy into other contested content categories and chilling open internet principles.