New Bill Aims To Block Foreign Pirate Sites in the US 106
U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren has introduced a bill that would allow courts to block access to foreign websites primarily engaged in copyright infringement. The Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act would enable rightsholders to obtain injunctions requiring large Internet service providers and DNS resolvers to block access to pirate sites.
The bill marks a shift from previous site-blocking proposals, notably including DNS providers like Google and Cloudflare with annual revenues above $100 million. Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin backed the measure, while consumer group Public Knowledge criticized it as "censorious." The legislation requires court review and due process before any blocking orders can be issued. Sites would have 30 days to contest preliminary orders.
The bill marks a shift from previous site-blocking proposals, notably including DNS providers like Google and Cloudflare with annual revenues above $100 million. Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin backed the measure, while consumer group Public Knowledge criticized it as "censorious." The legislation requires court review and due process before any blocking orders can be issued. Sites would have 30 days to contest preliminary orders.
Next step (Score:3)
Trump applies tariffs to The Pirate Bay.
Re: Next step (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Next step (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more to the point, why does it matter to you? Why would you want to lie to someone purposefully and what kind of person are you if you can live with yourself after?
Re: Next step (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many laws prohibiting lying. In fact Trump is a felon because of some of them.
They are probably unconstitutional laws; that is Laws which lack constitutional authority to exist and therefore themself illegal and invalid laws. The right to Free speech does include the right to speak; regardless of whether what is said is viewed as a truth or a lie. The right to Free speech also includes the right to be silent or not say something; that is the right to know of something viewed as true and to n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are probably unconstitutional laws; that is Laws which lack constitutional authority to exist and therefore themself illegal and invalid laws. The right to Free speech does include the right to speak; regardless of whether what is said is viewed as a truth or a lie.
So the laws against slander and libel are unconstitutional? Someone should alert the courts.
The Supreme Court has ruled [britannica.com] on the types of speech that are not protected under the First Amendment. "The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats."
Re: (Score:2)
Under the Common Law in the 18th century, quite a few types of speech were illegal. From incitement to slander. Your Founders understood this and purposely only limited Statuary law from limiting speech. They could have done like the 2nd amendment and said something like "The Freedom of Speech shall not be Abridged"
The 2nd was worded like it was to override the Common Law which only allowed being armed for self defence, and to make the point they threw in the part about militias.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want to lie to someone purposefully and what kind of person are you if you can live with yourself after?
The world is not a nice theoretical place. It is real. There are people, animals, and processes that will kill you. Lying is a reasonable choice in many circumstances.
Of course, lying to people who you are supposedly in a trusting relationship with is an act of betrayal... but not all lying reflects negatively on the liar.
Re: Next step (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get a load of this guy. He tells the truth to his enemies because he thinks that they respect integrity and will fight 'fair'. Moron.
Re: Next step (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. A True Believer. This is hilarious. Let me know when the mugger taking your money coughs to alert you that he is about to attack. Gotta have a fair fight over your money.
Re: Next step (Score:2)
Re: Next step (Score:1)
Not in this country it isn't. Fraud and slander are both illegal. Fact is an absolute defense against slander or libel here, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The civilized western world has done away with slander as a crime, so there's not such a thing anymore.
And fraud is not a law against lying. Just a lie on its own is not fraud. Fraud is a law against schemes intentionally organized/designed to seriously damage someone of which false statements are made, but the false statement is only 1
element of the required elements for a fraud to have occurred. In fact, you don't have to tell a lie to have committed a fraud.
Failing to disclose the truth, and
Re: (Score:1)
That's a lie.
Another way to look at it is you are free to say what you want.
Unlike in other countries the US government will not arrest you.
However, you are not free from the consequences of that free speech. Alex Jones and Rudy Giuliani are recent high-profile examples. If through your free speech you defame me, I will sue you and take every nickel you have.
Re: (Score:2)
If through your free speech you defame me, I will sue you and take every nickel you have.
Fun fact.. defamation actions can only succeed if the speaker has provable malice in giving a false statement that the damaged party can show the speaker has actual knowledge is false. Or at least that is what the standard is for public figures, or limited public persons. Limited public persons would include people such as Twitter users, or people posting on Slashdot regarding the subject of materials you author
Re: Next step (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Next step (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is clear evidence we need to establish Age constraints for Office.
I recommend Age minimum to run for president: 35 years. Age maximum to run for election: 50 years.
Age minimum to run for house member: 25 years. Age maximum to run for house member re-election: 50 years.
Age minimum to run for senate member: 35 years. Age maximum to run for senator re-election: 55 years.
Re:Next step (Score:5, Informative)
Biden’s economy was good. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/... [cnbc.com]
Maybe stop watching fake news.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
>> "Biden trashed the economy"
No cites means you are lying.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was so good, then why were so many people suffering? (the other side isn't doing any better, so don't go down the road of equivalency).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Next step (Score:1)
People choosing to stay home isn't voter suppression, just apathy, stupidity, and ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Troll doesn't mean "this makes me sad" (Score:1)
But if you troll modded that comment, it does make you a Russian actor.
https://www.wired.com/story/ru... [wired.com]
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Let's keep this going (Score:2)
I have more karma than you have modpoints, unless you're an "editor" in which case I want to make that abundantly obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He wants to annex Canada, he keeps going on about the 51st State and there are actually MAGA Canadians who believe him, as if Canada would be granted Statehood rather then a territory treated much like Puerto Rico.
Unluckily things can get really ugly with the tariffs just step one, sanctions perhaps step 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Are the eggs cheaper now than they were back then? Asking for a friend in the US, who complains they now cost even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But trump did blame Biden, and his minions did too. Now its nobody's fault?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said he would bring down inflation on day one. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/28... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And bring peace to earth in 24 hours after him winning the election.
We see he's now trying to figure out which of the several new wars he's proposed will be the littlest, victoriousest one.
And he will make his pick, just like dubbya and all the rest did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Next step (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol go for it, I’ll always find a way to avoid paying US companies for anything - including media - from now on.
Sigh (Score:2)
Another one?
Okay, good luck with this one too.
I'm in my 40's and I've never yet seen an effective solution to software, audio or video "piracy".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the work of a moment to run DNSCrypt with a bunch of public servers (or your own) on any machine.
Then not only can they not interfere with your DNS responses, but they have no idea what DNS you're even requesting, and where the upstream response is coming from (i.e. what server you chose to use to ultimately query DNS, or what country it's in).
Like every tech ever - "Oh, no people are doing this, let's ban it", and then someone applies basic encryption to the underlying protocol. So they chase the oth
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a solution. Reasonable pricing. No annoying DRM or marketplace agents. Buy once, own forever.
It is when media publishers try to tighten their grip, the more people slip away to the high seas.
Re: (Score:3)
Reasonable pricing? Blaspheme! This is Pluta!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You purchase and own forever a license to a copy of the media DRM free in the quality you set out to purchase (1080p, 4k, etc.). Higher quality can always be released eventually as their cameras are already in 8k and beyond. Alternatively, if you have a good GPU or pay for it, you can upscale the videos.
This has been the ongoing war with Linux since the early 2000s, and it still doesn't have a way to play DVDs or Bluray movies.
I personally would have a massive collection by now an
Re: (Score:1)
or maybe the site-killing weapon they're building "for piracy" isn't just about piracy
Re: (Score:2)
The dark web is 7900tb and Growing... Surface web is 25tb approx., by comparison. They never learn....
Those numbers are completely made up bullshit. The regular internet is currently estimated to be several zettabytes in size. That's millions of terabytes. The dark webs is currently estimated to be 0.01% of the internet in size, roughly 100 gigabytes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
. I'd also contest the numbers (AI hallucination, or comparing apples and oranges
Re: (Score:1)
Re:And they wonder why... (Score:4, Informative)
The AI answer you linked to is just plain wrong. Just read what it says, its total nonsense.
->
According to most estimates, the dark web is significantly smaller than the entire internet, representing only a tiny fraction, with the "deep web" (which includes the dark web) holding around 7,500 terabytes of data compared to the surface web's 19 terabytes, meaning the dark web is likely less than 1% of the total internet size in terms of data storage
TL;DR: In the same sentence, the AI says the Dark Web is 7,500 Terabytes, but is less than 1% of 19 terabytes.
--
The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend. - Robertson Davies
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing they just got their notation wrong on the 25tb part. I mean my RAID array at home is more than 25TB and I don't think I can store "the internet" on it . . .
Re: (Score:1)
Glad to see congress working on urgent matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Why work on things such as healthcare, fiscal budget, homelessness, unemployment, etc when you can work on another anti-piracy bill that wont work...
Re:Glad to see congress working on urgent matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's what they get paid for. The congresscritters are not answerable to the people who need the things you list, they are answerable to the people who give them larger "contributions" and other legal bribes.
Quite simple, really, their incentives are all wrong and it shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the plutocrats of Big Media want it and they have deep pockets to bribe law makers via legal campaign donations, thanks in part to the GOP Scotus with their free "gifted" RV's and vacations.
Re: Glad to see congress working on urgent matters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have to protect their Hollywood mega donors. It’s amazing how software companies don’t get the kind of protection that Hollywood does.
Re: (Score:2)
Also because it leads towards Project 2025's goal of banning pornography. But since it also has backers everywhere making easier to pass.
And software gets lots of protections- software patents. And this stuff will likely apply to pirate software sites as well, but honestly, software piracy is far lower given the amount of high-quality open-source software, software subscriptions, and other things that limit how much you can pirate anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
there is no warning that copying software will get you 25years in prison. Copy a movie, prison time. Copy music, prison time. Copy software, a civil suit with no prison time.
It'll never be misused by large corporations... (Score:2)
... just like the DMCA.
The Irony Machine (Score:2)
The foreign crooks the law-makers want to target are likely using zombie'd computers that are inside the USA, as spam filters often give foreign IP addresses more scrutiny. I bet some of those law-makers' own PC's are serving pirated content.
DNS Providers (Score:2)
They can have my /etc/hosts file when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I was running Windows 7, the virus scanner I used blocked/disabled the hosts file as an anti-spoofing measure. I can't remember if I ever found a solution to that before I abandoned Windows anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You can always run your own private recursive DNS server such as Unbound, and insert stub-addr entries directly. I understand this is a more technically-oriented solution.
My feeling is this a bad concept, because what is going to happen when you have some pirate abusing shared domains? An example would be you have a shared webserver like geocities used to be which has many tenants, and only one of the customers hosted on a particular server is a bad guy.
The other thing is pirates move to new doma
Re: (Score:1)
Don't give the plutoMob ideas.
The beginning (Score:2)
of the Great Firewall of America.
It will be sold as a tool to protect Americans from unamerican foreign contents.
only the beginning (Score:2)
"Congress and its allies in the entertainment industry has decided to build out a sweeping infrastructure for censorship"
If they get this in place there will be many subsequent bills banning large swathes of web content that are in any way related to whatever the GOP doesn't happen to like today.
'FADPA and similar ‘site-blocking’ proposals would give Big Content the internet killswitch it has sought for decades. Copyright is hotly contested and infamously easy to use as a cudgel against free spe
Re: (Score:1)
If they get this in place there will be many subsequent bills banning large swathes of web content that are in any way related to whatever the GOP doesn't happen to like today.
Wrong political party. Zoe Lofgren, who introduced this bill, is a Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a relief, the bill has no chance of passing. The GOP does not accept any legislation proposed by the Dems.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest we start building out the replacement for DNS protocol today.
I guess the hard problem is seeding that initial authenticity data.
It's very difficult to move DNS over to a new protocol without creating problems like someone else can try and claim domain X
who never owned domain X in the DNS.
So my suggestion would be to introduce a new DNS record type which is used to publish a "Domain owner as of X date" certificate to be cached on all internet clients forever and ever.
For example this pro
They block pirate site, but not China hacker's IP (Score:2)
Later Zoe (Score:2)
Good luck getting re-elected.
ChYna feerz US bills (Score:1)
Give me a break. The copyright mafiaa and their well-paid congresscritters are just more pigfuckers sucking their own dicks.
China doesn't care about US laws.
E
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong!