Copyright Industry Continues Its Efforts To Ban VPNs
from the the-internet's-infrastructure-is-under-attack dept
Last month Walled Culture wrote about an important case at the Court of Justice of the European Union, (CJEU), the EU’s top court, that could determine how VPNs can be used in that region. Clarification in this area is particularly important because VPNs are currently under attack in various ways. For example, last year, the Danish government published draft legislation that many believed would make it illegal to use a VPN to access geoblocked streaming content or bypass restrictions on illegal websites. In the wake of a firestorm of criticism, Denmark’s Minister of Culture assured people that VPNs would not be banned. However, even though references to VPNs were removed from the text, the provisions are so broadly drafted that VPNs may well be affected anyway. Companies too are taking aim at VPNs. Leading the charge are those in France, which have been targeting VPN providers for over a year now. As TorrentFreak reported last February:
Canal+ and the football league LFP have requested court orders to compel NordVPN, ExpressVPN, ProtonVPN, and others to block access to pirate sites and services. The move follows similar orders obtained last year against DNS resolvers.
The VPN Trust Initiative (VTI) responded with a press release opposing what it called a “Misguided Legal Effort to Extend Website Blocking to VPNs”. It warned:
Such blocking can have sweeping consequences that might put the security and privacy of French citizens at risk.
Targeting VPNs opens the door to a dangerous censorship precedent, risking overreach into broader areas of content.
Indeed: if VPN blocks become an option, there will inevitably be more calls to use them for a wider range of material. The VTI also noted that some of its members are considering whether to abandon the French market completely. That could mean people start using less reliable VPN providers, some of which have dubious records when it comes to security and privacy. The incentive for VPNs to pull out of France is increasing. In August last year the Paris Judicial Court ordered top VPN service providers to block more sports streaming domains, and at the beginning of this year, yet more blocking orders were issued to VPNs operating in France. To its credit, one of the VPN providers affected, ProtonVPN, fought back. As reported here by TorrentFreak, the company tried multiple angles:
The VPN provider raised jurisdictional questions and also requested to see evidence that Canal+ owned all the rights at play. However, these concerns didn’t convince the court.
The same applies to Proton’s net neutrality defense, which argued that Article 333-10 of the French sports code, which is at the basis of all blocking orders, violates EU Open Internet Regulation. This defense was too vague, the court concluded, noting that Proton cited the regulation without specifying which provisions were actually breached.
ProtonVPN also argued that forcing a Swiss company to block sites for the French market is a restriction of cross-border trade in services, and that in any case, the blocking measures were “technically unrealizable, costly, and unnecessarily complex.” Despite this valiant defense, the court was unimpressed. At least ProtonVPN was allowed to contest the French court’s ruling. In a similar case in Spain, no such option was given. According to TorrentFreak:
The court orders were issued inaudita parte, which is Latin for “without hearing the other side.” Citing urgency, the Córdoba court did not give NordVPN and ProtonVPN the opportunity to contest the measures before they were granted.
Without a defense, the court reportedly concluded that both NordVPN and ProtonVPN actively advertise their ability to bypass geo-restrictions, citing match schedules in their marketing materials. The VPNs are therefore seen as active participants in the piracy chain rather than passive conduits, according to local media reports.
That’s pretty shocking, and shows once more how biased in favor of the copyright industry the law has become in some jurisdictions: other parties aren’t even allowed to present a defense. It’s a further reason why a definitive ruling from the CJEU on the right of people to use VPNs how they wish is so important.
Alongside these recent court cases, there is also another imminent attack on the use of VPNs, albeit in a slight different way. The UK government has announced wide-ranging plans that aim to “keep children safe online”. One of the ideas the government is proposing is “to age restrict or limit children’s VPN use where it undermines safety protections and changing the age of digital consent.” Although this is presented as a child protection measure, the effects will be much wider. The only way to bring in age restrictions for children is if all adult users of VPNs verify their own age. This inevitably leads to the creation of huge new online databases of personal information that are vulnerable to attack. As a side effect, the UK government’s misguided plans will also bolster the growing attempts by the copyright industry to demonize VPNs – a core element of the Internet’s plumbing – as unnecessary tools that are only used to break the law.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. Originally published on WalledCulture.
Filed Under: cjeu, copyright, encryption, privacy, security, vpns
Companies: canal plus, nordvpn, proton
Comments on “Copyright Industry Continues Its Efforts To Ban VPNs”
Let’s also ban people from travel outside of their copyright region of birth.
All communication across copyright regions must be blocked or monitored for copyright violations.
Re:
Had the publishers gotten their way in the Kirtsaeng case, that would’ve been their next logical request. Americans could, after all, read the book Nineteen Eighty-Four in a country where it’s not copyrighted; maybe they’d even import copies. And then what incentive would Orwell have to write some sequels?
If the idea of copyright can be broken by the Internet, it deserves to be broken.
Re:
the idea of COPYRIGHT is simply a government enforced MONOPOLY — always a bad idea anywhere
Re:
“The idea of copyright”, or the Internet?
Re:
Hey, think of all of the middleman leeches. How will they survive without copyright? They would be forced to get a job. How unfair!
Re: Re:
Even the non-middlemen, such as authors and musicians, might have difficulty milking a lifetime of income from one long-ago job that went well. Do we really want to encourage them to work repeatedly? You know, like the rest of us?
As to Copyrights, WHY? there are only reasons for Sports and TV.
The whole thing will come down to only a few things.
First is easy. OUR protection. From Tracking and spam and Virus and so forth.
Might as well restrict every book in a library. Or have every site report the Connection of the User Each time they connect to the service.
But then we will have, “They use it, Why cant we?”. Thinki8ng the Problem is the Customer and NOT that the Company ISNT USING a VPN to control their Data is STUPID.
And, Most of this is reflected from the occurrence of a USA military and a person that was to Monitor an OPEN channel set aside for communications between nations. IF you dont have\Use VPN, is your Data protected?
Yes there are reasons Many services dont use it, as it adds Data compression problems that have to be Solved, and creates delay. But that also allows ALMOST anyone to tap into your Data connection, Mostly from onsite, the Start location.
Re:
I suspect you were actually trying to make a point… Maybe you could try saying it in English?
Re: Re:
Look through ECA’s comment history, and you’ll deem this unlikely. They’ve been posting for years, rarely with more than a superficial resemblance to English.
Lots of forums have a recognizable (non-spam) commenter who posts often-incomprehensible messages, with ODD punctuation and some words in all-caps for no IDENTIFIABLE reason.. ECA is Techdirt’s..
We will simply replace VPNs
“The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it” will hold true in this instance, as it has in many others. VPNs aren’t the only way that we already have to move traffic privately — and if it becomes necessary, we’ll develop new ones. (There’s a who shelf full of proposals, some good, some bad, some crazy, for alternatives.
The base problem here isn’t copyright or the Internet — it’s greed. Online content is way too expensive and way too hard to access: the cost should be reduced and the access made simpler until both reach a point that piracy is no longer the first and best option. That won’t make it go away entirely but it’ll decrease it to the point where no sensible person will care about it.
E.g. I pirated two things this morning that I already paid for because Comcast made it impossible to get them. That’s insane. Nobody should be put in this position. But here we are.
Re:
But by giving them money and accepting their definition of “pirate”, you’re basically supporting their position.
The problem with trying to ban VPNs is that no one uses VPNs in Enforcementland. Strangely, all traffic to prohibited websites comes from Useavpnia.
Vpns arent going anywhere
You work remotely guess how you go about doing that?
So something missed in all the obviousness here.
VPNs also connect businesses to either the cloud or other locations. Depending on how it is done, a VPN ban could create as much or more of a mess as the current OS age verification bs.