The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that publishers and VPN providers aren’t liable for copyright infringement
- VPN providers aren’t liable for copyright infringement, said the EU Court
- The Court explicitly recognized VPNs as “lawful technical tools”
- The case centered on the copyright battle involving Anne Frank’s diary
In a major victory for digital rights and common sense, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has officially categorized Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) as “lawful technical tools” while establishing new boundaries for online copyright disputes.
The landmark judgment — handed down in July 2026 — stems from a complex legal battle over the online publication of Anne Frank’s historical manuscripts. At its core, the case forced Europe’s top judges to answer a highly technical question: if a publisher actively tries to block visitors from a specific country, are they still breaking the law if a user sneaks past the digital border using circumvention software?
According to the CJEU, the answer is no. As long as a website employs “state-of-the-art” geo-blocking technology, the publisher cannot be held liable for copyright infringement simply because a determined reader decides to fire up the best VPN to bypass the restrictions.
The ruling sets a massive precedent. It confirms that copyright holders cannot point to the mere existence of VPNs to claim a website’s security measures are completely ineffective.
thanks, i was wondering what Anne Frank was doing in that headline
deleted by creator
Of course, Anne Frank’s diary should be way the fuck out of copyright if the US hadn’t shoved Micky Mouse copyright terms down everyone’s throats.
a) The EU extended copyright before the US. It went even further than the US by reviving previously expired copyrights.
b) The relevant copyrights are expired in most of Europe. They still exist in the NL because of a special exemption granted by lawmakers.
Thanks for the informative. I’m in the ~5 years camp, and the current situation pisses me off. Even if the EU did it of their own accord, plenty of the world had it required for ‘free’ trade agreements.
Continental Europe had worse copyright laws since the 19th century. The US founding fathers were enlightenment age idealists, hence the copyright clause. European copyright laws were created by authoritarian empires. It’s a major reason why we can’t do tech. And I suspect also why Europe can’t answer to the dominance of US culture.
Legal theft like the Mickey-Mouse-Protection-Law is controversial in the US. In the EU, it goes by without comment. That ends up giving casual observers an exactly reverse impression of the legal and social situation. Same for a lot of issues.
Does anyone comprehensively understand the effect of confirming them as “lawful technical tools” in case of further challenges to VPNs?
No idea, but it sounds like you are allowed to use them. But most likely not to do anything illegal, such as violating any license agreements. So any streaming service can forbid using a VPN to change location and bypass region-blocking. But again, no idea.
Not sure using a vpn to bypass region-locking is violating a license, but dammit I’m a comment, not a cop, Sibbo
This was mostly a ruling about the responsibility for websites (don’t have to block VPNs to enforce regional restrictions of content, etc) and VPN providers (not responsible for users circumventing regional restrictions). Websites can still choose to try to block, of course. Users can still be liable as usual if they use it to break the law but private companies are generally not responsible for enforcing that others follow the law, they’re responsible just for their own actions.
It’s weird because what else could it be, if you ban VPN: how companies are supposed to let you use a laptop out of their local network
They could ban VPNs being sold commercially. That would be enough to stop 90% of the people who currently use VPNs to evade lawful regulations on harmless activities.
Very minor. They are simply not illegal at present. This does not put a check on lawmakers wanting to outlaw or “regulate” them.
