Copyright Protection Trends in Major

Countries in the Second Half of 2025

By Protection Strategy Department, KCOPA

<Overseas Copyright Protection Trends> is a specialized copyright protection journal published by the Korea Copyright Protection Agency (KCOPA) that features articles by experts on current trends in policies, technologies, and laws related to copyright protection overseas.

This section briefly introduces the latest developments in <Overseas Copyright Protection Trends>, aiming to help C STORY readers

gain expert insights into overseas copyright protection.
* The full version of the article below is available on the KCOPA website under the Archive section on the Overseas Copyright Protection Trends page.

Key Points and Implications of the U.S. “Block BEARD” Bill

Lee Chulnam / Professor, Chungnam National University Law School

The core of the “Block Bad Electronic Art and Recording Distributors (Block BEARD)” bill, which was bipartisanly proposed in the U.S. Congress in 2025, aims to introduce a new judicial process that would allow copyright holders to block access to websites located overseas and engaging in clear piracy through federal court orders. The bill emerged in response to the following key issues: 1) severe economic losses to the creative industry; 2) proliferation of secondary damage caused by cybercrime, such as malware distribution and phishing scams, through illegal websites; and 3) necessity for a website blocking system aligned with international copyright protection standards. Consequently, it has reignited the long-standing tension between copyright protection and freedom of expression. In response to the criticisms of the 2012 SOPA/PIPA bills regarding ambiguous definitions, the Block BEARD bill sought to clearly define its scope. The bill stipulates that a website must undergo a judicial review before it can be designated as an illegal site, that the website must be operated by a public entity outside the U.S. or with an unidentifiable U.S. location, and that small businesses and small ISPs will not be burdened with undue technical or financial burdens by this bill while adopting the definition of a service provider.

Moreover, the bill establishes a deliberate two-step judicial process for site blocking. First, a court designates a “foreign digital piracy site” (designation order), and copyright holders can then petition the same court for a second injunction requiring the ISP to block access. Regarding ISP obligations and indemnification, the bill exempts ISPs from legal liability arising from good faith compliance with “reasonable measures” provided by copyright holders or courts, including civil lawsuits by parties who claim to have suffered damages as a result of the blocking. Furthermore, ISPs are relieved from the obligation to independently verify or investigate information provided by copyright holders or courts regarding blocked sites.

This bill represents a carefully crafted legislative initiative focused on three core principles, namely, independent judiciary oversight, precise targeting of clearly illegal sites, and strong immunity for ISPs. It reflects an attempt to balance the strong need to protect the creators’ rights against significant concerns about the possibility of internet censorship. However, considerable challenges may arise should civil society and technology communities, which led the 2012 SOPA/PIPA campaign, mobilize organized opposition once more. The direction of the debate is becoming increasingly unpredictable as the bill becomes intertwined with the larger political discourse of “Big Tech regulation” and “online censorship.”

If this bill passes, it could transform the role of ISPs from network providers to “gatekeepers” regulating content access and potentially reigniting the debate over “net neutrality.” Moreover, if the U.S. were to formally adopt a site-blocking system, it would likely have significant implications for global internet governance and copyright enforcement mechanisms worldwide.

Illegal Streaming Website Operator Jailed in the UK
Cho Heegyeong / Professor, Hongik University Law School

In July 2025, York Crown Court in the U.K. sentenced Stephen Woodward to three years and one month in prison for operating three illegal IPTV streaming websites that generated over £1 million (approximately KRW 1.8 billion) in illicit profits, while his accomplice and brother, Christopher, received a 12-month suspended sentence and 240 hours of community service. They pleaded guilty to charges of distributing copyrighted content illegally and money laundering.

The defendants sold illegal access to approximately 6,500 channels worldwide, including paid sports channels like Premier League football broadcasts. Investigators revealed that the defendants converted proceeds through credit card payments, PayPal accounts, and peer-to-peer remittance platforms like Circle into virtual assets, which were then converted back into lawful money and deposited into 23 bank accounts to disguise the source of the funds. Multiple cases of identity theft and the use of fraudulent identities to open accounts were also confirmed.

In response, the U.K. investigators obtained a court order to freeze assets in the defendants’ bank accounts and cryptocurrency wallets, totaling approximately £1.1 million (approximately KRW 1.93 billion), and confiscated cash and jewelry. Moreover, investigators are applying for a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO) to restrict financial transactions and other activities, aiming to prevent repeated crime after release.

This ruling is the result of a long-term investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU). Vital information came from private organizations dedicated to preventing piracy, such as the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), as well as cooperation with relevant agencies including the British Transport Police and the Border Force throughout the investigation. Moreover, the investigation demonstrated the combined capabilities of these agencies in digital forensics and money tracing, including online payment monitoring, virtual asset analysis, and detection of financial patterns involving multiple accounts.

The core of this case was the illegal distribution of copyrighted material coupled with money laundering offenses. This ruling set a precedent by affirming that selling access to content without the copyright owner’s permission through streaming qualifies as “distribution of copyrighted material” under British law. Moreover, the large-scale cash and account dispersal, the exchange of virtual assets, and the operation of fictitious accounts were identified as classic money laundering tactics, which contributed to a strong conviction. This case highlights the British authorities’ strong commitment to completely eradicating economic incentives for illegal operators via criminal proceeds recovery, asset freezes, and seizure and recovery orders. Such measures are important in reducing the likelihood of repeated crimes, and the ruling is viewed as a decisive response by the British authorities to the combined crime of illegal content distribution and money laundering.

Greece Introduces Administrative Penalties for End Users of Illegal Content
Kim Gyeongsook / Professor, Department of Intellectual Property, Sangmyung University

In February 2025, the Greek government amended its Copyright Act (Law No. 5179) to introduce a system imposing direct fines on end users aimed at reducing illegal streaming, IPTV, and website-based content. This approach, the first of its kind in Europe to directly penalize users, has drawn considerable attention for shifting the responsibility structure for online copyright infringement from providers to consumers.

The amendment’s rationale for the Copyright Act (ASIR, Αιτιολογική Σημείωση) argued that merely showing warning messages upon accessing illegal websites fails to deter illegal activity, thus necessitating the introduction of a fine system as a sanction for end users. Based on this background, the revised act stipulates fines extending beyond illegal set-top box distributors to include end users consuming illegal content, those who screen or broadcast illegal content in public spaces (regardless of commercial purposes), and those who advertise on illegal websites. Moreover, the revised law allows for differential penalties based on the severity of the violation, aiming to deter the rapid restoration of services through alternative IP addresses or new domains.

The newly established Article 65A, Section 2B stipulates that administrative penalties may be imposed for infringements of broadcasting rights related to live performances, with fines applicable to end users who violate this provision. In particular, Article 65A, Paragraph 2B, concerning infringements related to video content and broadcasts, stipulates that anyone who retransmits, records, copies, sells, distributes, transmits, or publicly transmits (including on-demand) video works, broadcasts, domestic or international TV broadcasts, or live performances without legitimate authority, possesses or uses illegal equipment or software, or illegally uses such content in any other manner, shall be subject to a fine of €750 (approximately KRW 1.27 million) for end users, €1,500 (approximately KRW 2.54 million) for illegal distributors, and €5,000 (approximately KRW 8.48 million) for bars, cafés, etc., that advertise through illegal services. Fines for repeat offenses will be doubled.

Enforcement proceedings for the imposition of fines are initiated ex officio or through written notification by the competent investigative authorities, including the Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AAAE), the Economic Crime Investigation Office (ΣΔOE), the Interministerial Market Supervision Authority, the police, port police, and customs authorities. In cases involving Article 65A, Paragraph 2B violations, fine imposition proceedings are initiated following the submission of pertinent documentation to the competent judicial authorities. All these proceedings are conducted in compliance with the provisions of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, Regulation 2016/679) and Greek Law No. 4624/2019. The process involves the issuance of a notice of infringement, filing of an objection, imposition of fines, and collection.

The revised Greek Copyright Act goes a step further than the existing user regulation via online service providers by introducing a system to impose direct fines on users of illegal content. By directly sanctioning end users via independent administrative procedures, the law demonstrates a policy commitment to more effectively deter the increasing infringement of IPTV, illegal streaming, and live performances in the digital environment.

In light of many countries repeatedly blocking illegal websites and links yet facing limited success due to the “balloon effect,” the Greek model is noteworthy for its structure, which controls the demand for illegal content itself by expanding the scope of sanctions to end users. This system further benefits from its ability to impose rapid sanctions through administrative procedures. However, concerns are being raised that IP address-based user identification procedures may conflict with the GDPR and privacy principles, and that they could impose an excessive legal burden on users. A more balanced enforcement approach will likely be achieved through the establishment of more transparent enforcement procedures and substantial guarantees for appeal procedures.