Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 150 posts

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

#101

Post by jeroenhd »

> However, in the Netherlands, parts of the text remain protected by copyright until 2037.

I'm not for complete copyright abolishment but this is absolutely insane. In this case, the copyright term is so long because the original copyright lasted 50 years after publication (rather than the author's death), but a change in copyright law changed that to 70 years and moved the counting date.

Regardless of legalities, taking action against distribution of Anne Frank's diary seems like the exact logical opposite of what this fund should be doing.

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

#102

Post by jeroenhd »

wickedsight wrote: post #84

It feels weird/wrong that the Anne Frank Foundation of all things would fight against a free internet and battle companies that allow people to fight oppressive regimes.

They didn't like that the Dutch copyright law didn't apply outside of the Netherlands and tried to take back the documents with the "anyone visiting this page can be Dutch and therefore Dutch law still applies" argument.

It's not about a free internet, it's plain old copyright and control.

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

#103

Post by jeroenhd »

EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #42
ChrisArchitect wrote: post #6

EU posts about it: Copyright in the European Union and geo-blocking: a work that is in the public domain can be published online free of charge in a Member State even if it remains protected in another Member State [pdf] https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/202... Other blog post: CJEU clarifies when geo-blocking limits online copyright liability https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu…

> Now, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands must determine whether the geo-blocking used by the website was state of the art and effective in practice. If so, the intended audience would not have included Dutch users, and no communication would have been made to the public in the Netherlands. This seems extremely problematic, depending on what "state of the art and effective" means. It seems like blocking VPN users i…

> depending on what "state of the art and effective" means

This isn't codified into law for good reasons. Technology shifts and you don't want to have to update laws every time someone invents a new cipher or protocol.

The website is defending itself from having to pay a fine because they're blocking VPN users. They require blocking VPN users to skirt around the extreme terms in Dutch copyright law. If they didn't block VPNs, they would've lost already.

This boils down to "did they try hard enough not to violate copyright in the place(s) where copyright was still applicable".

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

#104

Post by kleiba2 »

cloudie78 wrote: post #96

Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. The way to fight piracy is to offer a better service than the pirates. Simple as.

High prices might be an incentive for piracy but it cannot be a justification.

It's a bit like saying it's okay to sneak into a movie theater because the prices for movie tickets are too high.

To me, I feel it's an integral part of a democracy that if there is a law you don't like, you have means to get it changed, but it always involves convincing others that your viewpoint is the one everyone should adhere to. Likewise, it is a part of this system that you accept and adhere to the laws as they are until they have been changed. I don't system a society can work where everybody takes laws and regulations as mere suggestions and picks the ones they like to follow.

When a providers offer something at a certain price and you don't like the price, but you would still really like the thing they're offering, you have two options: you either suck it up and pay the price they're asking or you simply move on and do without that thing. I find the idea of "these prices are outrageous, so I'm entitled to getting this thing without paying at all!" not ethically justifiable.

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

#105

Post by arlort »

EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #40
hdgvhicv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, the EU courts will just follow suit the moment the legislation is changed. That’s the whole point. The courts uphold the law. Change the law, and the courts change what they do.

One of the core functions of Court of Justice of the European Union (CEJU) is to perform judicial review, which means they can strike down laws. So it would not be legal to pass legislation attempting to make legal what they struck down.

That's only partially true

In this case my understanding is that they determined vpn-s as a tool to fall outside the scope of the law and so they struck down an attempt to enforce the law

If the law got changed so that vpn-s are now within the scope of the new law then you'd expect them to not apply the same reasoning anymore in examining a similar case

Judicial review would come into play if the challenge was about the updated law being inconsistent with some more important law such as the treaties or charter

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

#106

Post by jen_h »

rubysprite wrote: post #63

If they can target us by IP for surveillance pricing etc. then we need VPN as a basic survival tool. You can’t shop around someone changing prices around you knowing your income etc. Similarly you cannot meaningfully use social media, Reddit or even HN if your IP is on their lists. Unfortunately many online organizations have gone to war with their users so we need VPN and other tools to mitigate the abuse.

This--and also, if you're a US resident traveling abroad, you can't access most health data without a US-based VPN.

Everything's "in the portal" -- you're effectively helpless without a VPN if, for example, a loved one is hospitalized or you need to access to your own data/records. (You can try phone calls, but expect the old, "Well, I can't help you, that's in the portal.")

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

#107

Post by Antibabelic »

Hacker_Yogi wrote: post #79
pembrook wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a red herring. We're not arguing about whether it is standard for governments to attempt to exercise maximal control. We're arguing about whether governments executing censorship regimes via ISPs (like the Chinese Communist Party) without any balanced legal proceedings is a good thing. And no, it does not happen like that in the US.

Sorry if I come across as being pedantic but it's actually the Communist Party of China - the CPC, even though many, esp. in the US, use the wrong abbreviation - CCP.

It is pedantic. Saying that people should say CPC instead of CCP adds nothing to the conversation. If it grinds your gears then maybe starting with organizations like the Encyclopedia Britannica[0] rather than random Hacker News commenters might prove more effective.

[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Communist-Party

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

#108

Post by vv_ »

kleiba2 wrote: post #104
cloudie78 wrote: post #96

Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. The way to fight piracy is to offer a better service than the pirates. Simple as.

High prices might be an incentive for piracy but it cannot be a justification. It's a bit like saying it's okay to sneak into a movie theater because the prices for movie tickets are too high. To me, I feel it's an integral part of a democracy that if there is a law you don't like, you have means to get it changed, but it always involves convincing others that your viewpoint is the one everyone should adhere to. Like…

It's a reference from an old interview with Gabe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQweFurRz4g

> It's a bit like saying it's okay to sneak into a movie theater because the prices for movie tickets are too high.

It is not just the price, though. In some regions, for some media, the movie theater doesn't exist or the movies are not localized (no subtitles / dubbing).

Nowadays you need several subscriptions to watch all of the content you would normally watch. There are also different tiers now for video quality.

Essentially it is a lot more attractive to go to your local tracker and download the movie / anime / tv-show which will be of better quality and will be localized.

On the other hand, I haven't pirated a single game for over 10 years.

People will continue to consume content. But they aren't going to pay for what feels like a complete ripoff and manage 10+ subscriptions just to do it. If that is the way the industry is going then piracy will simply continue to thrive.

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

#109

Post by smolder »

Hacker_Yogi wrote: post #79
pembrook wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a red herring. We're not arguing about whether it is standard for governments to attempt to exercise maximal control. We're arguing about whether governments executing censorship regimes via ISPs (like the Chinese Communist Party) without any balanced legal proceedings is a good thing. And no, it does not happen like that in the US.

Sorry if I come across as being pedantic but it's actually the Communist Party of China - the CPC, even though many, esp. in the US, use the wrong abbreviation - CCP.

Chinese Communist Party or Communist Party of China makes little difference. There is a clear convention and no clear reason to change it.

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

#110

Post by meta_gunslinger »

vv_ wrote: post #108
kleiba2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High prices might be an incentive for piracy but it cannot be a justification. It's a bit like saying it's okay to sneak into a movie theater because the prices for movie tickets are too high. To me, I feel it's an integral part of a democracy that if there is a law you don't like, you have means to get it changed, but it always involves convincing others that your viewpoint is the one everyone should adhere to. Like…

It's a reference from an old interview with Gabe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQweFurRz4g > It's a bit like saying it's okay to sneak into a movie theater because the prices for movie tickets are too high. It is not just the price, though. In some regions, for some media, the movie theater doesn't exist or the movies are not localized (no subtitles / dubbing). Nowadays you need several subscriptions to watch all…

The law does not state "you have to pay for this, unless it's inconvenient".
Post reply on HN