by A top executive with the Motion Picture Association plans to urge lawmakers on Wednesday to pursue legislation to combat piracy through court-mandated site blocking, which major studios believe is needed to curb infringement. falls outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
The MPA wants legislation that would enable content companies to seek court injunctive relief requiring internet service providers and other intermediaries to disable access to an infringing site.
More from Deadline
“We urge Congress to consider reasonable and tailored no-fault injunctive relief as one proven way to combat digital piracy and its negative impact on the creative industries and our economy as a whole,” Karyn A. Temple, vice president MPA’s senior executive and global general counsel, said, according to his prepared statement to a House subcommittee.
The anti-piracy measure may sound familiar: More than a decade ago, studios pushed similar elements into House legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, along with a Senate bill. The bills initially won bipartisan support until a backlash, spurred by Google and other major internet companies, led to an unprecedented online outcry, including site blackouts and warnings that the law would restrict internet freedom. Lawmakers shelved the legislation amid opposition, at a time that highlighted the growing lobbying power of big tech companies.
Much has changed since then. Not only have Google, Meta and Amazon grown in strength, but they have also come under scrutiny from the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. Congressional lawmakers are opposed to the power of big tech, though they have failed to advance major privacy and antitrust legislation.
The MPA believes the warnings against SOPA have been overblown, and is targeting other countries that have implemented blocking sites without “breaking the internet,” as one official put it. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore and France allow courts to issue site-blocking orders, as do Spain, Denmark and France, Temple noted.
“Those countries that have implemented no-fault injunctions to disable access to structurally infringing websites have shown, through clear evidence and years of data, that this remedy is effective in reducing visits to piracy sites is hindering their reduction and causes users to change their behavior and migrate legally. , paid VOD services,” Temple said in his written notes.
Temple also explained how the no-fault regime works: Instead of suing a piracy site, many of which operate outside the jurisdiction of the United States, a copyright holder seeks a court injunction directed at intermediaries, such as internet service providers, who may access on the website to limit. infringing materials. ISPs, hosting providers, domain name system providers, content delivery networks, payment processors, social networks and search engines “need to take a much more active role to ensure that their services are not used to facilitate the activities of criminal organizations facilitate this,” said Temple. .
Temple said mediators would not be subject to the orders because “they are engaging in wrongdoing, but only because they are able to mitigate the violation.” They would not be liable or subject to damages to the copyright owner. Rights holders would also have to prove to the court that a site is “intended to infringe your copyright”.
Temple also said that injunctive relief should come with due process protections, including notice of the alleged piracy sites and the ability of intermediaries to challenge a court order. The court, she said, would look at “the potential burden on the intermediaries and whether disabling access to the site (including, e.g. , the public interest in accessing non-infringing material).
A spokesperson for Google did not immediately return a request for comment. Matthew Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, who has opposed court site blocking orders in the past, plans to testify at Wednesday’s hearing. FilmColony’s Richard Gladstein will also appear.
The hearing is focused on digital copyright piracy and is before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
There is no site-blocking bill on the table, and in the world of DC lobbying, the best bet is that Congress will do nothing. In addition to privacy and antitrust legislation, lawmakers have yet to resolve a two-decade-long battle over net neutrality, making it a seesaw of FCC orders and payback orders, depending on the administration.
After SOPA, the MPA and other content groups retreated for a while from lobbying for major anti-piracy legislation and instead sought cooperative agreements with internet providers, payment processors and advertisers. The studios had a significant legislative victory in 2020 when Congress included, in a year-end funding bill, a measure to make it a felony to operate a pirated streaming service. Meanwhile, MPA Chairman Charles Rivkin last year praised Google, once a major enemy of entertainment industry lobbyists. He wrote that Google has “removed a significant number of piracy-related domains” from its search results in these countries to help effectively enforce court orders requiring ISPs to block access to piracy sites. “
Temple argued that in countries with site blocking, there was “a proper balance between protecting copyright from those who aim to profit from piracy, and respecting the rights of those affected by blocking orders , including accused violators, mediators and the public. in general.”
She cited a 2019 study from Carnegie Mellon that showed that site blocking orders in countries such as the UK, Australia, Portugal and South Korea reduced traffic to piracy domains, while also increasing traffic to legitimate sources. The MPA provides funding to Carnegie Mellon’s Digital Entertainment Analytics Initiative, but the study’s author said the research was conducted “independently
no editorial oversight or control.”
Deadline is best
Sign up for the Deadline Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
