Case in point: Less than 15 percent of U.S.-based online video viewers use file sharing for their movies and TV show fix, according to Ericsson’s TV & Video Consumer Trend Report 2012 (PDF). Netflix on the other hand is used by around 55 percent. Hulu, websites of TV networks, iTunes and Amazon’s VOD offering are also more popular than piracy.

Compare that to Spain, where legal services are still in their infancy: Spanish online video users primarily access their shows and movies through “other means,” which likely stands for unlicensed streaming sites. File sharing is also hugely popular, and being used by more than 30 percent of all users. Licensed services on the other hand are far less popular, with none of them attracting more than 15 percent of all users.

So what should Hollywood do to fight piracy? One easy fix would be to license more content to Netflix and its competitors, and put up fewer restrictions on accessing this type of content.

However, in the U.S., the industry is actually moving into the opposite direction: Last fall, Fox began delaying access to its TV shows on Fox.com and Hulu.com for people who can’t authenticate themselves as subscribers of affiliated pay TV providers or Hulu Plus. It’s difficult to draw conclusions about the effect of these measures from Ericsson’s numbers, but it’s notable that both Hulu’s numbers and the use of TV networks’ websites went down when compared to 2011. Piracy and “other” means to access content on the other hand grew slightly.

It’s too early to tell whether the industry’s love affair with TV Everywhere is driving viewers back to piracy – but on a global level, the message seems clear: Instead of forcing countries to adopt ever stricter copyright laws, Hollywood would be well-advised to help services like Netflix and Hulu with their international expansion.

Photo courtesy of (CC-BY-SA) Flickr user Richard Masoner / Cyclelicious.

This week, the Justice Department posted a regulation that will allow all copyright holders — no matter how small — to download and use the logo. According to the FBI, the initiative was spurred by groups like independent film makers and sports leagues that have been clamoring to use the image:

The new rule is remarkable in that it places few limits on who can use the logo — which is familiar to most consumers who are forced to stare at it while waiting to watch a home movie. Under modern copyright law, a work doesn’t have to be registered to receive protection — the copyright springs to life as soon the work is created. That means everything from a blockbuster movie to a doodle on a napkin is copyrighted (and now eligible for the logo).

The Justice Department and the agency acknowledge that “widespread use of the APW Seal may “dilute” the value of the image and the FBI’s message” but claim that any potential logo-fatigue will be offset by “increasing the anti-piracy message across the board.”

The new rules coincides with increasingly aggressive tactics, such as wholesale domain name seizures, by the federal government to target intellectual property theft. This approach may appeal to copyright owners who are frustrated with the failure of anti-piracy laws like SOPA, but it may also prove short-sighted in the long term.

Criminal law is a heavy stick that should not be used casually. Most copyright vi0laters are not serious criminals like those the FBI typically confronts, but are instead ordinary people hoping to watch their favorite TV show. This plan to let anyone invoke the symbol of a heavily-armed law enforcement agency could ultimately undermine the overall legitimacy of copyright law.

The plan is also notable in that the FBI has aggressively challenged Wikipedia and others over the use of its logo. Federal criminal law forbids misuse of the logo but Wikipedia has maintained the law doesn’t apply to legitimate purposes like news reporting (as we have used it above).

A final regulation will be posted in the Federal Registry on Friday, according to Politico. The plan will be implemented by Executive Order which states that copyright owners (from bloggers to doodlers) can use it provided they download it from the FBI’s website and make sure it appears in a plain box border.

Here is a copy of the draft regulation:

FBI and Copyright
(Image by John Roman Images via Shutterstock)

In case you missed it, the first save-the-internet declaration kicked off in Silicon Valley this week and was quickly countered by a conservative alternative. Soon after, the United Nations weighed in with a manifesto of its own.

This burst of political energy shows that the internet may be the next ground zero of revolution and that we may need a Constitution-like document to define its values.

For confused internet warriors or those who simply want to stay out of the way, here’s a quick look at the new movements:

Movement #1: The Declaration of Internet Freedoms

What it is: A statement of five principles — Expression, Access, Openness, Innovation and Privacy — intended to keep the internet safe from censors, tyrants, plutocrats and the government.

Brought to you by: Silicon Valley tech and media types; the folks who brought down the SOPA anti-piracy bill

Pros: Nice idea, backed by folks who make cool web stuff and haven’t done you any harm

Cons: Preaching to the converted; hippies; shaky legal foundation (see Elie’s Constitutional mark-up here)

Movement #2: The Technology Revolution: A Campaign for Liberty Manifesto

What it is: A libertarian proclamation to protect the internet from censorship and the “collectivist-Industrial complex — a dangerous brew of wealthy, international NGO’s, progressive do-gooders, corporate cronies,” and to ensure that telecom and big data companies aren’t burdened with regulation.

Brought to you by: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), end-the-Fed folks, the ghost of Ayn Rand

Pros: Backed by political pros; laissez-faire outlook

Cons: Gives Microsoft, Comcast et al keys to the entire internet; possibly catastrophic for privacy and the poor

Movement #3: The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet

What it is: A UN Human Rights Council consensus resolution that affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognizes the internet’s role in promoting a right to media and expression

Brought to you by: The foreign minister of Sweden (via the NY Times) but also the fine governments of China, Cuba, Congo, Kyrgyzgstan, Nigeria, Uganda, Russia and Saudi Arabia (full list here).

Pros: Ringing affirmation of free speech and media across borders

Cons: The new world order; rabid anti-Americanism

Who do you cast your vote for?

In a perfect world, a future “Constitution of the Internet” would represent the idealism and tech savvy of Silicon Valley, the political experience of Ron Paul and the global community of the United Nations. But is this even possible? Some people may embrace this rush to stand up against threats to the internet — while others may be more alarmed by the internet’s self-appointed protectors.

(Images by Rob Kints, fourb, patrimonio designs limited and Oleksiy Mark via Shutterstock)

ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a multinational treaty aimed at curbing the global trade in counterfeit goods of all sorts, and has been the subject of frenzied negotiations (most of them secret) since at least 2008. Supporters say it is intended to harmonize copyright law across much of the world, but over the last few years, however, critics have been attacking for what they believe is a fundamental infringement of civil liberties, particularly when it comes down to digital copying.

Among its most egregious points, they argued, was the radical expansion of copyright law in ways that went far beyond existing national laws. ACTA’s concept of what constituted “commercial” copyright infringement had amazingly broad implications, and it would also make it illegal to circumvent DRM. Over time the proposals were watered down — the clause allowing border security to search your computer or iPod for copied music was dropped, for example — but many of the most controversial elements remained.

Championed by the European Commission, officials continued to work on the proposals and by the beginning of this year the European Union had already signed up in principle, along with countries like the United States and Japan. But as the moment drew closer when Europe would be asked to ratify the treaty — the move that would actually end up with it becoming law — concerns and criticism grew stronger and stronger.

In the wake of the successful SOPA protests in the US, many felt empowered and the movement really culminated in huge protests in Poland and elsewhere in January, where thousands turned out on the streets to make their feelings known.

That added to pressure from influential committees — and by the time the vote came around today, it was roundly rejected by EU parliamentarians.

Some of them celebrated their victory:

#ACTA biggest EVER legislative defeat for Commission in Parliament

— David Martin MEP (@davidmartinmep) July 4, 2012

But although the vote means that it’s unlikely that ACTA will rise again, it is worth realizing that it is not necessarily dead, either.

European trade commissioner Karel De Gucht — who had been lobbying hard to push the vote through in favor of the treaty — has already said he is so committed to getting ACTA working that he is prepared to come back with an altered version at a later date.

If you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me tell you that the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the current procedure before the Court, as we are entitled to do. A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

And although Europe has reject the treaty, it could still end up being ratified by the other signatories — Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the U.S. are all in the frame. Six of them would need to ratify the treaty in order to put it into effect.

Perhaps it’s worth heeding Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake’s thoughts:

#ACTA may be off the table but the struggle for #copyright reform and #digitalfreedom continues

— Marietje Schaake (@MarietjeD66) July 4, 2012

Photograph of Karel de Gucht used under Creative Commons license courtesy of World Economic Forum

The latest example involves Louis Vuitton. This week the luxury handbag maker asked a Florida court to take action against hundreds of websites with names like “louiszvuitton.com” and “knockofflouisvuittonhandbags.com.”

The case is significant because Louis Vuitton did not simply ask for an order restraining the websites from using its trademark. It also wants to zap them from the Internet altogether by forcing registrars like Go Daddy to unplug them and for search engines to deny their existence.

In this case, Louis Vuitton appears to be borrowing from a playback that Chanel has been successfully executing in Nevada since last fall. In that state, a federal judge has repeatedly granted injunctions that force Go Daddy and Google to participate in the enforcement actions. Here’s an example from an order handed down earlier this month (the language is technical but it’s easy enough to make out the general drift) :

The Registrars and the top-level domain (TLD) Registries for the Group VIII Subject Domain Names, upon receipt of this Preliminary Injunction shall … change or assist in changing, the Registrar of record … GoDaddy.com, Inc. shall hold and/or continue to hold access to the Group VIII Subject Domain Names in trust for the Court during .. this action. Godaddy.com shall.. modify the Domain Name System ..

Plaintiff may enter .. the Group VIII Domain Names into Google’s Webmaster Tools and cancel any redirection to the domains.

In its Florida complaint, Louis Vuitton is asking the court for similar orders.

The significance of this is that the luxury brands are taking actions similar to those proposed in the Stop Online Piracy Act, a piece of legislatin that went down in flames earlier this year. SOPA was so unpopular because it would have required tech companies to meddle with the technical integrity of the Internet.

With their injunction requests, Chanel and Louis Vuitton have discovered an end run that will let them do the same thing.

The issue here is not that these websites should be allowed to sell fake merchandise — the issue is that courts are giving brand owners private powers that may not be sanctioned by law. Meanwhile, the federal government is also using questionable tactics.

The FBI, for instance, has been seizing websites on the basis of anti-drug laws and then playing Hollywood propaganda messages on them. None of this is appears to be authorized under federal criminal law.

To learn more about the Chanel seizures, see trademark lawyer Venkat Balasubramani’s explanation on TechDirt. You can also see the hundreds of domain names in question below:

Louis Vuittion Complaint
(Image by Laschon Maximilian)

UPDATE: The vote was originally scheduled for Friday but took place Thursday evening instead. It passed 248 to 168 on largely partisan lines. (Read our account here)

Here’s a plain English guide to the polices and politics driving the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act:

So is this SOPA all over again?

Not really. The ill-fated Stop Online Piracy Act was about Hollywood trying to force tech companies to become copyright cops. CISPA, on its face, is about giving those same companies tools to confront cyber-attacks.

Isn’t that the same thing?

Critics said that an earlier version of CISPA was a stalking horse for the copyright industry — they worried that companies would dress up anti-piracy initiatives as security complaints. New language makes this unlikely and emphasizes that the bill is indeed about cyber-security.

Well, what cyber-security concerns are we talking about?

Major U.S. companies and government agencies have suffered hacking attacks in which intruders have stolen classified files, trade secrets or source code. The attackers include criminal gangs and state-sponsored (read: China) cyber espionage teams. Security experts warn that cyber-attacks lead to economic loss for companies and military vulnerabilities for the country.

Sounds scary. What does CISPA do to address this?

One of the bill’s main goals is to improve the sharing of information between companies and the government. In theory, it will be easier for the government to warn companies about security threats. In turn, the companies will have more ability to alert the government about suspicious activities or attacks.

So why do we need a law new for this?

CISPA wants to update existing laws like the National Security Act of 1947 to require authorities to share information about cyber-attacks as well as conventional military threats. There are also laws like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that limit what private companies can do with information about their customers. CISPA would help companies avoid getting sued under those laws when they share information about cyber-security.

Sounds reasonable. Everyone’s got to do their part to prevent a cyber-attack, right?

The problem, as you may have guessed, is that CISPA may be a lot broader than what is needed to get the job done. Critics worry that companies will be cavalier about passing data around if they don’t have to fear privacy lawsuits. Companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google and Netflix (many of which are supporting CISPA) are facing dozens of privacy-related lawsuits — CISPA might be a way to sidestep some of these in the future. Also, the government could invoke CISPA as a pretext to override civil liberties. From this perspective, CISPA is not so much SOPA but instead a new form of the Patriot Act.

Uh, oh. Is the law actually going to pass?

The bill passed the House amidst Democratic grumbling. Politico reports that Sen. Joe Lieberman expects a Senate version will see floor time as soon as next month. This does not, of course, mean that the bill will become law anytime soon — the approach of the November election is likely to put Congress into its semi-annual state of paralysis. Also, there are competing bills from the White House and also from people like Lieberman who want stronger measures to protect infrastructure like dams and utilities.

What about the veto threat?

The White House issued a strong statement on Wednesdays that attacked CISPA for trampling privacy and civil liberties. It said the bill should include a provision obliging the government and companies to minimize the amount of personal data that passes between them. The statement stressed the “civilian nature of cyberspace” and warns of a veto. But veteran political types noted the veto threat contains a hedge — it says advisers would recommend a veto, not that the President will veto it.

Where can I learn more about all this?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has its usual top-rate privacy analysis here. CNET’s Declan McCullagh has a worthy overview of the lobbying forces here and GigaOM’s Derrick Harris has a cool-headed look at the bill here. And the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has the bill and a summary here.

The criticism that, by including a provision for the protection of intellectual property, CISPA is little more than a less-conspicuous form of the draconian SOPA bill seems misguided. CISPA is vague and unnecessarily broad, but it’s not SOPA. In fact, the very same Internet companies that were so adamantly opposed to SOPA might support CISPA. Facebook already does. So does outspoken SOPA critic Darrell Issa (R-CA). Here’s why.

1. CISPA is actually good, in theory. The idea of sharing cybersecurity information between private companies and the government has merit, especially in a world of increased cyberattacks against organizations in both sectors. If you’re trying to discover patterns in attacks, more data is always better, and web sites are attacked constantly. That they also could have access to classified government data is particularly beneficial.
2. CISPA doesn’t require service providers to do anything. SOPA all but forced service providers to monitor user behavior to the benefit of media companies (or to avoid being shut down by them), but CISPA only allows those providers to act in their own best interests. It’s unclear to me, at this point, why any company like Facebook, Google or Twitter would do anything other than obtain information on activity that directly affects the security of their platforms or their proprietary data.
3. I’m not certain the inclusion of intellectual property protection was driven by ulterior motives. For one, CISPA actually reads as if private parties can only gather information relating to their own rights and property, which would mean ISPs can’t go about monitoring for copyright infringement because they don’t own any copyright. There’s a strong argument that the bill primarily targets cyberattacks aimed at stealing data or files from a company’s servers (CISPA co-author Mike Rogers (R-MI) said as much in a press conference yesterday), although existing cybersecurity law certainly target some of that activity.

Probably the biggest problem is what a company is able to do to “protect” itself from such threats. As the EFF points out, CISPA allows companies to “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity.” It also grants companies immunity from lawsuits if they exercise their rights under the bill in good faith.

If the EFF is correct, companies could bypass existing laws regarding the monitoring of communications, claim good faith and — if they have a solid case — be free from liability. The EFF also talks a lot about CISPA allowing service providers to “block” sites, although it’s unclear what type of activity the bill actually allows in response to information gathered. Does it allow them to obtain information and take shutdown actions like those SOPA would allow, or just to react to information only within the bounds of what’s already legal?

It’s a little scary, then, that CISPA has such strong support in the House of Representatives. Whereas SOPA had only 23 co-sponsors, CISPA has 106, including Issa. That web companies such as Microsoft and Facebook have signed off on it isn’t too promising, either. It likely will take some powerful voices to at least clear up the vagaries of the bill, but it’s hard to see where they’ll come from this time around.

Feature image courtesy of Rob Allday.

Faced with a proliferation of unauthorized book-sharing sites, the publishing industry is embracing some of the same legal tactics as their counterparts in the music and movie industry.

On Wednesday morning, an international coalition of publishers said they squelched two websites, library.nu and file.it. The industry described the sites as “one of the largest pirate web-based businesses in the world” and that the former site alone offered more than 400,000 copyrighted titles.

According to the release, the shut-down is the culmination of a long investigation in which the publishers struggled to identify who ran the sites. The site operators, who allegedly earned millions in advertising revenue, were finally located in Ireland. The publishers say they have commenced legal proceedings in both Ireland and Germany.

It’s not immediately possible to verify the claims, but the sites were down on Wednesday afternoon.

In the bigger picture, the announcement reinforces the publishing industry’s full-scale entry into a new phase of the copyright wars in which content owners are banding together to target foreign websites. The most dramatic recent example came last month when law enforcement seized the servers of file-sharing site Megaupload and arrested its owners in a dramatic raid.

Content owners’ recent success in taking down foreign websites also adds grist to the debate of whether new legal powers, like those in the failed SOPA bill, are actually necessary to target piracy.

The publishers’ aggressiveness overseas mirrors similar domestic efforts in the US. This week, publisher John Wiley launched a new series of “John Doe” suits to identify individuals who had downloaded its “For Dummies” books.

Note: An earlier version of this story stated that library.nu redirected to Google (NSDQ: GOOG) Books. The site is no longer doing so and it is unclear why it was doing so before. A Google representative said the company was unaware of the issue.

In a press release this morning, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tx) announced that the House Judiciary Committee is suspending a planned mark-up for the Stop Online Piracy Act, a bill that would have created new powers to target foreign “rogue” websites. Here are excerpts from the release:

I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy…

The Committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation.”

The House Judiciary Committee will postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution.

Smith’s announcement came shortly after Senate leader Harry Reid (D-Nv) said he was suspending a procedural vote on SOPA’s cousin, the Protect IP Act.

The news comes after a chaotic week in which the technology industry flexed newfound political power by blacking out popular websites in opposition to the bills, and the hacking collective Anonymous took down industry and government websites, including that of the FBI.

The upshot is that the current version of the legislation appears dead as a doorknob though some political watchers predict a modified version will reappear under a new name.

In the meantime, Reid and others are calling for a political rapprochement between Hollywood, who had pushed hard for SOPA, and Silicon Valley which ultimately sank it.

Many Republicans this week retreated from the legislation in the face of political pressure, meaning any new legislative proposals may not appear until after the November elections.

This week’s developments are remarkable considering that the legislation had wide bi-partisan support just months ago.