Music Industry Pressing Capitol Hill to Refresh Site-Blocking Laws

Photo Credit: Elizabeth Kearns, U.S. Navy (Public Domain)

After the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the liability verdict against Cox Communications, new site-blocking proposals emerge in Congress. But can this lobbying shift make up for a disastrous Supreme Court gavel drop in Cox v. Sony Music?

The Supreme Court recently ruled to reverse the piracy liability verdict against Cox Communications, a significant win for Internet service providers—but a major setback for rightsholders, who will find it harder to hold ISPs liable for subscribers who commit piracy. Now, the music industry is pushing for several new site-blocking proposals in Congress to refresh efforts to curb piracy where it occurs most: on websites.

But will the stepped-up lobbying campaign work?

In January last year, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) in the House. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) announced a draft of the Block BEARD Act just a few months later, with bipartisan support from Senators Chris Coons, Marsha Blackburn, and Adam Schiff. At the time, the House and Senate efforts were not coordinated—but that has apparently changed, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

According to sources speaking to TorrentFreak, Rep. Lofgren and Sen. Tillis have been working on a draft that would combine their separate proposals into one unifying piece of legislation. This approach marks a major shift from that of the past year and illustrates how the Supreme Court’s decision has impacted the piracy landscape for rightsholders.

While no draft has circulated publicly, sources note that the introduction would need to happen before Tillis’ term ends in January 2027. Otherwise, a timeline for the proposal could not be provided, but one possibility is that the legislation could be attached to an omnibus spending bill.

Details remain sparse, with no draft to inspect, but it is expected that the legislation will require both ISPs and large DNS (domain name service) providers to block foreign pirate sites.

That matches the proposal set out in Lofgren’s original FADPA bill, which specifically named DNS providers with more than $100 million in annual revenue. While Tillis’ Block BEARD Act does not mention DNS providers, it makes use of the official DMCA service provider definition, which casts a wide enough net to include them.

It’s notable that DNS providers are included, as it brings companies like Cloudflare and even Google into the fray. It’s also a relatively novel concept on an international level, as most site-blocking legislation does not explicitly include DNS providers.

Rightsholder groups like the RIAA, MPA, and Creative Future have all voiced their support for such legislation. On the other side of the aisle, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition, which represents major tech companies like Amazon, Google, and Cloudflare, launched its DNS At Risk campaign last year, warning the public about the threat of DNS blocking legislation. So far, public discourse over the matter has been relatively tame.

Meanwhile, a separate proposal from Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, has been circulating in draft form.

The American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) has not been formally introduced, but it takes a different approach than the Lofgren-Tillis efforts.

The ACPA proposes that the Judicial Conference of the United States maintain a roster of designated judges to hear piracy blocking cases, rather than relying on standard district court jurisdiction. Notably, Issa’s proposal also includes DNS providers.