- Messages
- 4,000
- Likes
- 1,873
- Points
- 2,130
American copyright holders may gain a new way to block users' access to foreign pirated websites, and it won't be just internet service providers (ISPs) that will be required to enforce court orders. A bill, HR 10364, has been introduced in the US House of Representatives
. It would explicitly include major VPN services and DNS providers among the companies required to restrict access to resources under court orders. The bill, known as the American Copyright Protection Act of 2026, was introduced by Congressman Darrell Issa on September 14, after which HR 10364 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill has not yet been passed and does not create any new obligations for VPN services in the US.
The proposed procedure begins with a copyright holder filing a lawsuit in federal court. The plaintiff must prove that a foreign website is infringing or is about to infringe copyright, causing damage to the copyright holder, and that the operator is located outside the US or its location within the US cannot be determined after reasonable verification. Before filing a claim, the copyright holder must also notify the resource operator and domain registrar, or make a good faith attempt to do so.
A court may recognize a resource as a foreign pirate site if the platform is primarily intended for accessing illegal content, has few commercially significant uses other than copyright infringement, or is itself promoted as a tool for such infringement. Following a court decision, the copyright holder will be able to separately request a block and list the providers whose participation is necessary to significantly restrict access to the resource from the United States.
The definition of a provider includes broadband operators, domain name resolution services, and VPN services. The requirements apply only to companies with at least 100,000 monthly users or subscribers in the United States. Excluded from the scope of the requirements are operators of root DNS servers, top-level domain registries, and organizations that simply provide internet access to visitors or employees at airports, libraries, universities, restaurants, stores, and other locations.
The court order must compel the specifically named provider to take all commercially reasonable measures to prevent users from accessing the specified pirated resource from the United States through its systems or networks. The bill does not dictate the technical method of blocking and expressly prohibits the court from mandating specific equipment, technology, or filtering method.
Before including a company in the order, the court must consider the infrastructure burden, the technical feasibility of blocking, the expected effectiveness, the potential harm to third-party services and users, the interests of the copyright holder, and the impact on society. The provider has the opportunity to object to inclusion in the order, and the standard response period cannot be shorter than 14 days.
After receiving the order, the company must have 14 to 30 days to comply. A standard blocking order is valid for a maximum of 12 months, but the copyright holder can request a court extension for an additional 12 months if the infringement continues and other legal requirements are met.
For materials whose value is particularly sensitive to the time of publication, the court will be permitted to shorten the established time limits, subject to compelling reason and due process. The bill classifies works as such if they are distributed, performed, or displayed for the first time simultaneously with or within 24 hours of their first authorized public display or distribution in the United States. If necessary, the court will be able to issue a temporary emergency injunction.
The authors of HR 10364 have included a mechanism for dealing with erroneous blocking. The owner or user of a third-party website will be able to appeal to the court if compliance with the order has restricted access to a resource not recognized as pirated. The court will be able to modify the order and, if the copyright holder's error is proven, award compensation to the injured party up to $250,000.
Providers will also be able to demand reimbursement from the copyright holder for a portion of the reasonable and already incurred costs of enforcing the specific order. At the same time, companies will be protected from liability for good faith actions when enforcing a judicial blocking order.
Darrell Issa, introducing the initiative, stated that current legislation is insufficiently effective against foreign platforms distributing protected content, and that judicial proceedings should combine the fight against piracy with the protection of legitimate internet services. The bill was supported by the Motion Picture Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, Nintendo, the Entertainment Software Association, the Premier League, and several other organizations.
The Motion Picture Association specifically supported the blocking, calling the judicial model a long-needed tool in the fight against digital piracy. The association points out that similar mechanisms are already in use in other countries.
Opponents of the initiative fear secondary blocking and the expansion of filtering at the internet infrastructure level. The Re:Create coalition criticized the inclusion of VPN and DNS services, citing risks to user privacy and access to unauthorized resources. The text of HR 10364 itself attempts to limit this risk through mandatory legal proceedings, assessment of potential damages to third parties, and the ability to challenge erroneous blocks.
If Congress passes the bill and the president signs it, the main provisions will go into effect in six months. After two years and then five years, the U.S. Copyright Office will be required to prepare reports for Congress on the impact of the new mechanism on digital piracy, the copyright system, and the functioning of the federal courts.
. It would explicitly include major VPN services and DNS providers among the companies required to restrict access to resources under court orders. The bill, known as the American Copyright Protection Act of 2026, was introduced by Congressman Darrell Issa on September 14, after which HR 10364 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill has not yet been passed and does not create any new obligations for VPN services in the US.
The proposed procedure begins with a copyright holder filing a lawsuit in federal court. The plaintiff must prove that a foreign website is infringing or is about to infringe copyright, causing damage to the copyright holder, and that the operator is located outside the US or its location within the US cannot be determined after reasonable verification. Before filing a claim, the copyright holder must also notify the resource operator and domain registrar, or make a good faith attempt to do so.
A court may recognize a resource as a foreign pirate site if the platform is primarily intended for accessing illegal content, has few commercially significant uses other than copyright infringement, or is itself promoted as a tool for such infringement. Following a court decision, the copyright holder will be able to separately request a block and list the providers whose participation is necessary to significantly restrict access to the resource from the United States.
The definition of a provider includes broadband operators, domain name resolution services, and VPN services. The requirements apply only to companies with at least 100,000 monthly users or subscribers in the United States. Excluded from the scope of the requirements are operators of root DNS servers, top-level domain registries, and organizations that simply provide internet access to visitors or employees at airports, libraries, universities, restaurants, stores, and other locations.
The court order must compel the specifically named provider to take all commercially reasonable measures to prevent users from accessing the specified pirated resource from the United States through its systems or networks. The bill does not dictate the technical method of blocking and expressly prohibits the court from mandating specific equipment, technology, or filtering method.
Before including a company in the order, the court must consider the infrastructure burden, the technical feasibility of blocking, the expected effectiveness, the potential harm to third-party services and users, the interests of the copyright holder, and the impact on society. The provider has the opportunity to object to inclusion in the order, and the standard response period cannot be shorter than 14 days.
After receiving the order, the company must have 14 to 30 days to comply. A standard blocking order is valid for a maximum of 12 months, but the copyright holder can request a court extension for an additional 12 months if the infringement continues and other legal requirements are met.
For materials whose value is particularly sensitive to the time of publication, the court will be permitted to shorten the established time limits, subject to compelling reason and due process. The bill classifies works as such if they are distributed, performed, or displayed for the first time simultaneously with or within 24 hours of their first authorized public display or distribution in the United States. If necessary, the court will be able to issue a temporary emergency injunction.
The authors of HR 10364 have included a mechanism for dealing with erroneous blocking. The owner or user of a third-party website will be able to appeal to the court if compliance with the order has restricted access to a resource not recognized as pirated. The court will be able to modify the order and, if the copyright holder's error is proven, award compensation to the injured party up to $250,000.
Providers will also be able to demand reimbursement from the copyright holder for a portion of the reasonable and already incurred costs of enforcing the specific order. At the same time, companies will be protected from liability for good faith actions when enforcing a judicial blocking order.
Darrell Issa, introducing the initiative, stated that current legislation is insufficiently effective against foreign platforms distributing protected content, and that judicial proceedings should combine the fight against piracy with the protection of legitimate internet services. The bill was supported by the Motion Picture Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, Nintendo, the Entertainment Software Association, the Premier League, and several other organizations.
The Motion Picture Association specifically supported the blocking, calling the judicial model a long-needed tool in the fight against digital piracy. The association points out that similar mechanisms are already in use in other countries.
Opponents of the initiative fear secondary blocking and the expansion of filtering at the internet infrastructure level. The Re:Create coalition criticized the inclusion of VPN and DNS services, citing risks to user privacy and access to unauthorized resources. The text of HR 10364 itself attempts to limit this risk through mandatory legal proceedings, assessment of potential damages to third parties, and the ability to challenge erroneous blocks.
If Congress passes the bill and the president signs it, the main provisions will go into effect in six months. After two years and then five years, the U.S. Copyright Office will be required to prepare reports for Congress on the impact of the new mechanism on digital piracy, the copyright system, and the functioning of the federal courts.