'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A recent ruling by the EU Court of Justice held that VPNs are “lawful technical tools” in the context of copyright, finding that a publisher who geo-blocks content is not liable if users bypass those blocks with circumvention software. Commenters see this as an important limit on attempts to export one country’s copyright or content restrictions to others, contrasting it with growing moves in Europe and elsewhere to order ISP-level blocking, mandate age verification, or otherwise tighten control over internet access. The case, triggered by a copyright dispute over Anne Frank’s diary, also reignites broader arguments about excessive copyright terms, cross-border enforcement, and the tension between protecting rights holders and preserving an open web.

Scope of the Ruling

  • Commenters stress the decision is about copyright and geo‑blocking, not directly about censorship, surveillance, or general VPN bans.
  • The key legal point discussed: if a publisher genuinely blocks users in a country, they aren’t liable when those users circumvent via VPN.

Geo‑blocking, VPNs, and Liability

  • The EU court text frames VPNs as “lawful technical tools” that users may legitimately use; VPN providers aren’t automatically deemed to be “communicating” copyrighted works.
  • Several note an important caveat: this only holds if VPNs themselves are lawful and merely technical tools.
  • The Dutch court still has to decide if the site’s geo‑blocking was “state of the art and effective”; some worry this incentivizes aggressive VPN blocking and invasive measures.

Regulators Blocking Websites

  • A parallel discussion centers on French regulators ordering ISPs to block a prediction/gambling site after it refused to geoblock France.
  • Critics see this as censorship without proper judicial review and liken it to a crude version of China’s firewall.
  • Others argue it’s normal law enforcement in a democracy: regulators exist to enforce gambling and advertising rules, and similar ISP blocking happens in the US and Germany (sometimes even via private copyright bodies).

Censorship, Governance, and the EU

  • Some see the EU as increasingly overreaching on internet control (VPNs, private chats, site blocks).
  • Others counter that courts simply apply whatever legislators pass, and judicial review can only strike down laws that clash with higher‑order EU rules.

Copyright Term and the Anne Frank Dispute

  • Many find it perverse that a foundation tied to a Holocaust victim is aggressively extending and enforcing copyright, including cross‑border.
  • Long debate on whether very long copyright terms (e.g., to 2037 and beyond) are justified:
    • One side: posthumous and extended copyright mostly enrichs estates and corporations; copyright is a form of censorship and should be strictly time‑limited.
    • Other side: royalties can legitimately support descendants, charities, and investors; creators deserve long‑term control if works stay commercially valuable.

VPNs, Age‑Verification, and Future Fights

  • Some hope the ruling will help defend VPNs against age‑verification and “protect the children” campaigns.
  • Others warn laws can be changed: courts will continue to uphold whatever new restrictions are enacted, and future attacks may target VPN providers directly rather than users.