Under normal circumstances in these trying times in Hollywood, the indies feel frozen out by the majors, and the exhibitors have big beefs with the studios, too. Yet here they are today united because of proposed federal legislation. A bipartisan coalition of several U.S. Senators — Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Schumer (D-New York), Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), Chris Coons (D-Delaware) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) — introduced and/or are sponsoring the Protect IP Bill, which aims to fight online infringement and counterfeiting by deterring, preventing, and rooting out websites that profit from trafficking in stolen content. Uniting in support of the bill are the major studios’ lobbying group the MPAA, The Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA), and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO).
According to the MPAA, the PROTECT IP Act targets foreign websites:
Formerly operating outside the realm of U.S. law, they would no longer be allowed to exploit U.S. registrars, registries, Internet service providers, payment processors, search engines and ad placement services to sustain their illicit online businesses. Internet sites that steal and distribute American intellectual property are often foreign-owned and operated, or reside at domain names that are not registered through a U.S.-based registry or registrar, setting them outside the scope of U.S. law enforcement.
The Justice Department and rights holders are currently limited in their options for legal recourse, even when the website is directed at American consumers and steals American-owned intellectual property. This legislation authorizes the Justice Department to seek a court order directing intermediaries and other U.S.-based third parties to cease providing transactions and support services to infringing sites. These third parties would then be required to take appropriate action to either prevent access to the Internet site (in the case of an Internet service provider or search engine), or cease doing business with the Internet site (in the case of a payment processor or advertising network).
The bill would also authorize rights holders a limited “right of action” to seek a court order against the domain name registrant, owner, or the domain name that is infringing their copyrights. To prevent the same site from simply reappearing online, this legislation would also authorize the Justice Department or rights holders to bring action against previously seized sites that have been reconstituted under a different domain name, site owner, or registrant, in the same Federal court, streamlining the infringing site’s elimination from the online marketplace.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


I guess they’re hoping that the USA’s preeminent role in the Internet will result in vigorous policing actions against infringers. OR, it may make them discriminate against US-based providers. The Internet is global after all.
I wonder if this has a chance of passing. What an overreach!
Great work Dodd, MPAA and the other senators…this is legislation which at the end of the day…will pad the pockets of lawyers.
Like the financial reform bill Dodd sponsored, this too, is so weak and will do little in the long run to address this issue.
But…you know the current thought is to pass legislation…whether it actually gets anything done effectively and cost efficiently is not a consideration.
I guess MPAA follows the theory…that something is better than nothing? That’s why Dodd is their man…although he may be more in the nothing category.
Horrible if this passes. It’s great to think they could curb piracy, but forcing ISPs to prevent access to websites is bull$#!^.
It’s interesting that this isn’t really going after the pirated content itself, but is instead hoping that these sites rely on American companies’ implicit approval to operate.
I don’t know nearly enough about the law relevant to this, but for this very reason people that host other people’s content across all media have disclaimers that they aren’t responsible for what the users do.
this gives them the right to ask for a court order to get these things done, but should a judge grant the order? I’d like to hear some opinions from both sides before I make up my mind
If this worked, it would be great. Logistics aside, I have no problem whatsoever with forcing ISPs to block websites pirating material. Seems, from the posts above, that some are decrying a threat to unrestricted internet traffic? Espousing a utopia in which any crook should be able to reach any computer with their website of pirated material? I disagree.
Speaking for myself, but assuming the other posts agree…all of us would like better controls in this area. The point is that this legislation is weak…probably won’t pass…and is just window dressing to give people the misconception that these issues are being addressed in effective and enforceable ways.
These are serious issues…they require serious attention…but, this kind of legislation is like a film with no story and character…but, huge visual effects to distract the viewer from all that is absent.
And, this ‘slam bam’ legislation like this type of film…have the same results…the audience/public is left wanting and feeling they wasted their time and money for something so unfulfilling.
The MPAA already censors enough …now they want a hand in the Internet? What a joke this all is!
Uesnet it is then.
This is so fantastic. As head of giantmediacorporation dot com, I will be able to silence any critical mention of my company from overseas, as my company name and products will be trademarked and copyrighted in all aspects. If you mention my company name in your article, I will have your website blocked from the internet. Excuse me while I order up some white bubbly wine that is kept in a bottle under great pressure.
Litigate don’t innovate. – Hollywood
“Espousing a utopia in which any crook should be able to reach any computer with their website of pirated material? I disagree.”
Just like that Utopia where legislation will somehow magically put the genie back in the tech bottle? Pirating is a fact of life. Learn to live with it, or *shock* evolve to use it to your benefit, orof course, go out of business. No one outside of So Cal will weep…
Um…this would be completely against Net Neutrality if they blocked sites because of pirated material. No site should ever be blocked on the internet…unless it’s kiddie porn. It’s also not the site owners fault. This is the exact reason why they have disclaimers stating that they’re not responsible for what gets posted.
Also, torrent sites can be used for legal activity as well. There are many local bands/bar bands and even some up-and-coming movie producers that use torrent sites to host their movies/tv shows/albums they produce, just to get their name and likeness out their in hopes that someone important will stumble upon it and sign them. Sometimes you have to pay to get the .torrent file while other times (as in the case with Nine Inch Nails and Girl Talk) you go to the band’s website and get the torrent file right there. Unfortunately, people in legislation have no idea wtf they’re talking about or doing because they can barely turn on the computer at their desk let alone know anything about networking, torrents, or modern day marketing strategies.
I would also like to point out that most of the time when an artist “complains” about their song leaking to the net, it’s their manager that leaked it for publicity and to get the song out there. In these cases, these songs that get “leaked” usually shoot up to number 1 on the charts. Like I said, torrents can be used for legal purposes as well.
One nation, under the MPAA, with liberty and justice for the rich.
It remains to be seen how well it will work but it’s definitely a step in the right direction.
The internet, as it stands now, is almost wholly unregulated and anarchistic. Hackers, scammers, and parasites reign. Top-tier content creation is unsustainable in this environment. Without some sort of game-changing push back, the same dire fate that befell the labels and newspapers will befall Hollywood as well.
Make all the laws you want, they are meaningless unless they are enforced. And as Bill Clinton scoffingly said on Letterman when he mentioned sanctioning China, “You don’t dictate policy to your bankers.”
Too bad any roadblocks they put up can be bypassed with the use of proxies. Stupid old men and their complete lack of understanding for the digital age we live in.
Wow… Shocking.
The Internet was founded on the ideal that traffic would be routed regardless of content. Using that simple ideal it was able to grow to what it is now.
I’m all for sensible regulations of truly harmful content but piracy hardly qualifies — no one dies because some college kid downloads a movie.
Logistically it’s impossible to enforce. All this will do is push “pirates” underground further, utilizing encryption protocols to mask the traffic and just hiding it from view. Much in the same way prostitution and gambling seem to be treated in the United States.
The scary part is that it could be used to effectively shutdown access to any content that some corporation didn’t like or the Justice Department felt they didn’t like — you may say “Not so!” but it is extremely doubtful that the people overseas who could be “blocked” by this have the money or legal savvy to actually fight such rulings.
Effectively, the Movie companies could go whine to a court or the Justice Department and say “This is ours!” and the court orders ISPs to block the content of people who have no chance of ever fighting it in court.
How is this different than China’s Great Firewall?
The Internet’s fundamental tenant is to “route all traffic,” this keeps routers cheap and fast (relatively speaking) and has allowed for exponential growth. Adding a the extra step in there is going to cost all ISPs money and the antithesis to the ideal of the Internet that has allowed it to grow so successfully.
We lived under the rule of Ma-Bell for how many decades and we saw how much innovation? Two decades with the Internet, however, and look how far we’ve come.
It’s a completely backwards measure that fails to understand the importance of free communication across the globe and is more in-line with China’s Internet view than the ideals of a free society and open market.
Simply put — if you want to stop pirates, quit whining and make a better widget.
They should start off with the 7 billion skype just got,
the founders of skype did create kazza, which stole billions in software, movies, music since the early 2000′s
and one of the founders of facebook who is now a billionaire
times are really hard these days for many of us in the entertainment industry because of these Sh$@heads,
This will not work. You can shut down all the torrent sites you want. Guess what the biggest torrent search engine is? Yeah Google, then Bin, then yahoo. That’s the easiest way to find the files. I guess you’ll have to shut them down as well. Also any IP that agrees to do this will lose large amounts of costumers to IP that don’t. This will not work short of shutting down the entire internet you’ve lost control of your property as soon as it’s converted to 1′s and o’s. You might want to make money on it, but you’ve basicly set it free for any computer to consume and share. Can anyone tell me of an artist that’s gotten money from one of these lawsuits? Have you shut down any of the really big sites? Hollywood as wasted a ton of money that they could have used to evolve. Oh well it’s fun to watch them take the hard road
Not true scott
for example, the music industry,
the minute these downloading companies have to pay out billions to the labels and artists they will set the tone of what not to do in any country,
the minute isp’s start to disconnect service to their users for illegal downloading very users will try it,
when that happens the profits needed to keep the music industry alive will be back,
no one is making money right now, they are using profits from the late 90′s to try to keep it all going but that is now about at an end, I know of one exec that went from a 4 billion dollar net worth and he is now down to a billion and this occurred in less than 10 years,
keep this in mind
in the music biz in the 90′s many could make a minimum of a million a year all day every day, it was when cd’s, records were being sold at 9 bucks profit per album, it is no longer the case,
as a result of that, most of us artists, exec and record producers have lost our palatial homes, cars, studios and are on welfare praying the industry turns around, my record has been downloaded 500,000 times on many illegal sites, and on itunes I have sold 20,000 singles, over 200k was spent to promote it, so we lost big on this one,
the movie and tv biz is heading that way fast unless drastic measures are made and they know it, the tv movie biz is 1000 times more wealthy than the music biz so that is why these laws are going to get passed and put many freeloaders to a standstill.
This is great news! I would like to ask everyone weighing in on this new legislation to actually read the bill before commenting so you at least know what the hell you are talking about.
They won’t be going after the P2P file sharers, they will be hitting the pirates (most of whom are mobsters in foreign countries) where it hurts – by cutting off the flow of money to their bank accounts.
Hurray for Hollywood!
bipartisan? i see only 2 republicans–hatch and graham. why should republicans help hollywood?
how does someone in Bulgaria downloading American TV hurt anyone? or someone in the USA downloading something from UK TV?
or downloading something from a channel your cable provider does not offer?
Hollywood just exaggerates/inflates their loses and can’t see the long term of anything; if they had their way they would have blocked TV (they tried) and VCRs (they tried) and without VCRs there would be no DVDs
Susan,
In the bill there is a provision on where if you illegally download anything your isp cuts off their service to you and that includes p2p file sharers,
illegal meaning anything that is released by a indie/major label, studio, software company, publisher,
and when that happens we will be out of the dark ages,
introduced with a foreign website
Its very good decision, I am supporting this decision, and please american guys do support them…