Explore

(1) This Bill was introduced to provide new tools to enforce online copyright infringment. These measures applied to "foreign infinging sites". This definition includes (i) U.S.-directed sites used by users in the United States; (ii) whose owners or operators are committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations; and (iii) which would be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site. (2) The most relevant enforcement tools included (i) the requesting of court orders requiring Internet service providers to block access to the websites (ii) the requesting of court orders barring search engines from linking to the infringing websites, (iii) court orders barring advertising networks and payment facilities from conducting...

(1) Capitol Records, which owns copyrights in sound recordings, musical compositions, and images of album cover art, sued MP3Tunes, an online music storage service provider whose website allows users to store music files in their personal online music “lockers." On MP3Tunes, users can search for and transfer songs to their lockers. (2) The Court held in favor of MP3Tunes. The Court found that MP3Tunes qualified for safe harbor under DMCA, except when the songs were transferred from certain unauthorized websites. In this regard the Court noted that “if enabling a party to download infringing material was sufficient to create liability, then even search engines like Google or Yahoo! would be without DMCA protection. In that case, the DMCA’s purpose — innovation and growth of internet services — would be undermined." (3)...

This Bill is the Senate version of SOPA and a rewrite of COICA (see below). The Bill would give the US government and copyright holders additional tools to enhance "enforcement against rogue websites operated and registered overseas," which are dedicated to the sale of infringing or counterfeit goods. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Bill, which was later placed on hold after a wave of protests from civil sopciety and tech industry (see above). See also SOPA & PIPA EFF page

authorizing the Attorney General to bring an in rem action against any domain name "dedicated to infringing activities." Upon obtaining an order for relief, the registrar of, or registry affiliated with, the infringing domain would be compelled to "suspend operation of and lock the domain name." The bill passed the Senate judiciary Committee but, after negative public reaction, never received a full vote at the Senate. It was later resubmitted with amendments as the Protect IP Act.

This statute was unanimously passed by the US Congress in 2010 in response to libel tourism concerns, and in particular in response to UK lawsuits against an American author whose book claimed to document Saudi Arabian financing of terrorism. It partially reflects pre-existing judicial doctrines regarding enforceability of foreign judgments that conflict with the US First Amendment. The SPEECH Act has not been much litigated. The most important case to date is the 2017 EFF v. Global Equity. The Act precludes enforcement of non-US defamation judgments unless the party seeking enforcement can make some very difficult legal showings: That the foreign court applied protections consistent with the US First Amendment and relevant state law That even with US law protections, defendant would have lost the case That the...