“As Congress considers initiatives to codify the blocking of foreign pirate websites into law, it is time to revisit the effectiveness of website blocking and its implementation worldwide.” So said the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation in June 2025 report, which should be read closely by US regulators.
The report reinforces conclusions that have been reached and promoted by copyright stakeholders and the industry infrastructure that promotes and protects it, as well as those who produce and follow best-practices to implement anti-piracy safeguards.
Top-line, the report recognizes digital piracy as a multi-billion dollar industry built on fraud and deception, and that while the US has tools to combat it domestically, regulatory frameworks are lacking because the US lacks jurisdiction over non-US sites.
The report notes and identifies more than 50 countries that permit site blocking, 39 of which actively block them; because blocking has proven effective and encourages users to seek legal sources.
The report also concludes and rationalizes that the need for anti-piracy protections, practices and regulations outweigh the position of interest groups that argue the Internet should remain “free.”
Losses are well documented
A 2019 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center estimated annual losses from digital piracy at between $29 billion and $71 billion, and that is only in movies and TV shows. A forecast produced by market research firm Park Associates projected losses exceeding $113 billion by 2027, estimating that the value of fraudulent advertising to US consumers will reach $700 million that year.
The report identifies multiple sources of illicit revenue, including
Advertising: The report quoted the Digital Citizens Alliance 2021 report estimating that in 2021, pirate websites featuring stolen movies, TV shows, games, and live events generated an estimated $1.3 billion in ad revenues
Subscriptions: The report quoted 2024 research published by TheWrap, estimating that there are about 130 commonly used subscription-based pirate sites in the United States, some with up to 90 percent profit margins
Malware and cybercrime: The report notes that “users of pirate websites are three times more likely to report malware,” and quoted a 2024 IEEE study, saying that “an analysis of over 700 pirated software samples in Southeast Asia conclude(d) … that all of them are contaminated, with 35 percent containing Trojans and 34 percent containing adware….”
Different forms of site blocking
The report identifies technological methods for site blocking: DNS, IP address, and URL blocking, summarized in this table published in a report by the World Intellectual Property Organization in 2025, which also identifies which countries implement these techniques.
Blocking is effective
2023 survey commissioned by the Coalition Against Piracy (CAP) of the Asia Video Industry Association (AVIA) analyzes changes in consumer patterns after blocking access to pirate sites, which determined that “62 percent of users in Indonesia and 64 percent of users in Malaysia effectively changed their viewing habits.
“Moreover, the survey concludes that website blocking can effectively “crowd out” users from consuming pirated content; 20 percent of the respondents declared that they’d started paying for legal content after the blocking, over 40 percent stated they’d started consuming legal free content, and half of the sample still used pirate sites after the blocking declared that they would start paying for legal content if no pirate sites were available,” said AVIA-CAP.
Several of the same authors published a report in December 2024: “Analyzing data from the 10,000 most-visited websites in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam between April 2020 and April 2022, the researchers found that traffic to blocked sites decreased by 72 percent, 60 percent, 38 percent, and 55 percent, respectively.”
More than 57 percent of pirate sites receive little to no visits after a blocking order, according to MUSO, a data analytics company.
The report goes on the identify site blocking techniques and practices that are effective against piracy. These include:
Good governmance: In the UK and Canada, “gradual, consensus-based, and engaged approach to website blocking can effectively counter digital piracy and prevent unintended consequences.” In other countries, poor governance design has resluted in falsely blocking lawful sites and creating ineffective escalation practices.
Seizing domains: Under civil and criminal forfeiture laws as well as trademark laws, the United States federal government can seize pirate domains. This is the basis for Operation In Our Sites, a program led by the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) and managed by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Provides a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs), limiting their liabilities if they store copyrighted material, do not perceive financial benefit from it, and credibly lack awareness of facts or circumstances relating to infringing activity. OSPs seeking the Section 512 safe harbor must follow a “notice-and-takedown” process if a copyright owner or their authorized agent claims that content on the platform infringes their rights.
Codifying Web site blocking: In 2011, The House of Representatives, members introduced the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA). In the Senate, legislators proposed the “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011″ (known as PIPA or the Protect IP Act). Neither of them passed, due to opposition campaigns accusing these bills of “reducing freedom of expression.”
Conclusions
The report concludes that the US should pass and implement site blocking legislation that has the following attributes (directly quoted here):
Governance
-
- Courts should retain exclusive authority to issue blocking orders.
- ISPs should receive reasonable immunity from liability for complying with blocking orders.
- The law should ensure that blocking injunctions are enforceable across all ISPs.
- ISPs should be fairly compensated for the costs incurred in implementing blocking measures.
Technical Feasibility
-
- Blocking orders should include multilayered technical specifications.
- A technical consultation process should include, at a minimum, rightsholders, ISPs, and content delivery network providers to determine appropriate blocking methods.
Structure
-
- Blocking orders should be static, dynamic, and live.
- The legislation should specifically target foreign large-scale piracy operators.
- Users attempting to access a blocked site should receive a clear notice stating that access has been restricted due to copyright infringement and providing instructions for filing a complaint if they have evidence to the contrary
In January 2025, Representative Zoe Lofgren introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), which aims to codify the blocking of foreign websites. FADPA is well aligned with these proposed recommendations.
“For example, FADPA advocates for courts to issue static, dynamic, and live injunctions, offers liability protections for ISPs, provides cost reimbursement for ISPs, and ensures general protections for targeting solely foreign sites that engage in massive copyright infringement,” said the ITIF report.
Country-by-country
The report concludes with a massive appendix that identifies and details the processes and practices of 39 countries that have presented cases of website blocking injunctions, along with a description of the blocking governance, the types of blocking, and the level of blocking orders they have issued.
Exhaustive reference materials
The End Notes section cites nearly 200 research sources to back up its claims and conclusions (including some by Piracy Monitor)
Further details
Blocking Access to Foreign Pirate Sites: A Long-Overdue Task for Congress. Report (PDF). June 9, 2025. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
