Bill · H.R. 791· House(119-HR-791)
Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act
- Introduced
- 1/28/2025
- Last activity
- 1/28/2025 — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Sponsored by
- Zoe Lofgren
- Cosponsors
- None
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) seeks to amend title 17 of the United States Code to address copyright infringement by foreign entities. The bill allows "covered persons," such as copyright owners, to petition courts for preliminary orders against infringing foreign websites or online services. These orders can direct service providers to take reasonable measures to prevent users from accessing the infringing content. The legislation includes specific provisions for the imminent transmission of live events to address harm on an expedited basis. It also establishes protocols for amending orders and ensures transparency through a public website.
Yes· 3 of 5
Would business owners be better off under this?+6
The bill assists copyright owners and licensees in protecting their commercial assets from unauthorized transmission.
Does this make patent and copyright rules fairer?+5
The bill creates new legal mechanisms for copyright owners to enforce their intellectual property rights against foreign entities.
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+4
The bill requires courts to maintain a publicly accessible website containing information about blocking orders.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Copyrighted Works: The bill allows copyright owners to seek relief when their work is likely to be infringed or when a live event is subject to imminent unauthorized transmission (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Expedited Relief for Live Events: For those facing immediate harm from the unauthorized transmission of live events, the court may issue orders on an expedited or ex-parte basis (Section 2(a)(6) and (7)).
-
Prevention of User Interference: The court is prohibited from issuing orders that would interfere with a user's access to non-infringing material on other websites (Section 2(b)(2)(A)(i)).
-
Protection of Service Provider Operations: An order cannot be issued if it would significantly burden the operation of a service provider's system or network (Section 2(b)(2)(A)(ii)).
-
Transparency for the Public: Courts are required to make orders, including the name of the petitioner and the infringing website, available on a publicly accessible website (Section 2(b)(7)(A)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Potential for Over-Blocking: While the bill aims to prevent interference, a service provider may accidentally prevent access to other websites while implementing an order, requiring a motion to modify the order (Section 2(b)(5)(B)).
-
Financial Burdens on Service Providers: A service provider may incur reasonable marginal costs and expenses to implement and comply with an order, which may then be passed to the petitioner (Section 2(b)(5)(D)).
-
Burden on Service Providers to Act Quickly: For live events, service providers must implement orders within a very short timeframe, such as within 7 days of the order being issued (Section 2(b)(2)(B)(i)(II)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Business Owners+6
- Education And Technology
- Improves Intellectual Property Fairness+5
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+4
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Consumer Protection+3
- Social Issues And Justice
- Improves Second Amendment Protections+1
- 1/28/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House