'Anne Frank' Copyright Dispute Triggers VPN, Geoblocking Questions At EU's Highest Court (torrentfreak.com)
- Reference: 0175146633
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/09/27/2310247/anne-frank-copyright-dispute-triggers-vpn-geoblocking-questions-at-eus-highest-court
- Source link: https://torrentfreak.com/anne-frank-copyright-dispute-triggers-vpn-and-geoblocking-questions-at-eus-highest-court-240924/
> The Dutch Supreme Court has [1]requested guidance from the EU's top court on geo-blocking, VPNs, and copyright in a case involving the online publication of [2]Anne Frank's manuscripts . The CJEU's response has the potential to reshape the online content distribution landscape, impacting streaming platforms and other services that rely on geo-blocking. VPNs services will monitor the matter with great interest too. [...] While early versions are presumably in the public domain in several countries, the original manuscripts are protected by copyright in the Netherlands until 2037. As a result, the copies published by the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting, are blocked for Dutch visitors. "The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations," is the message disallowed visitors get to see.
>
> This blocking effort is the result of a copyright battle. Ideally, Anne Frank Stichting would like to make the manuscripts available worldwide, but the Swiss 'Fonds' has not given permission for it to do so. And since some parts of the manuscript were first published in 1986, Dutch copyrights are still valid. In theory, geo-blocking efforts could alleviate the copyright concerns but, for the Fonds, these measures are not sufficient. After pointing out that people can bypass the blocking efforts with a VPN, it took the matter to court. Around the world, publishers and streaming services use geo-blocking as the standard measure to enforce geographical licenses. This applies to the Anne Frank Stichting, as well as Netflix, BBC iPlayer, news sites, and gaming platforms. The Anne Frank Fonds doesn't dispute this, but argued in court that people can circumvent these restrictions with a VPN, suggesting that the manuscripts shouldn't be published online at all. The lower court dismissed this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The Fonds appealed, but the appeal was also dismissed, and the case is now before the Dutch Supreme Court.
>
> The Fonds argues that the manuscript website is (in part) directed at a Dutch audience. Therefore, the defendants are making the manuscripts available in the Netherlands, regardless of the use of any blocking measures. The defendants, in turn, argue that the use of state-of-the-art geo-blocking, along with additional measures like a user declaration, is sufficient to prevent a communication to the public in the Netherlands. The defense relied on the opinion in the GO4YU case, which suggests that circumventing geo-blocking with a VPN does not constitute a communication to the public in the blocked territory, unless the blocking is intentionally ineffective.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/anne-frank-copyright-dispute-triggers-vpn-and-geoblocking-questions-at-eus-highest-court-240924/
[2] https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/diary/