The core argument against the House and Senate bills known as the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act, respectively (SOPA/PIPA), was that blocking piracy websites would undermine the Internet’s technical foundations. But it was a canard.

Absent effective restraints, piracy continues to threaten the jobs and economic and cultural contributions of America’s creative sectors. Multitudes of offshore piracy services make it easy to access pirated content in the United States.

Research from Australia, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere proves the intuitive rationale for website blocking—if enough piracy sites are blocked, then people will shift to legal sources, especially given the growing number of such services.

Not all content on the Internet deserves to exist and be protected by law. Many countries have shown it is possible to take reasonable, targeted measures against illegal material without undermining their commitment to “a free and open Internet.”

It is a false binary to suggest the Internet can only be completely free or closed. What matters is what and how some things blocked, where the lines are drawn, and how they are overseen by courts.

Courts in Australia, the European Union, and elsewhere have demonstrated that website blocking is a fair, effective, and proportionate tool to target major piracy sites and that it does not undermine human rights, free speech, or net neutrality.

It’s time for the United States to follow the rest of the world by creating an effective legal pathway for rightsholders to get ISPs to block access to websites involved in the mass(not incidental) dissemination of copyright-infringing content.