Anne Frank copyright holders in the Netherlands sued Belgian academic institutes for publishing the diary.The diary is still copyright protected in parts of the Netherlands and is im the public domain elsewhere in Europe. The publisher employed geoblocking for the Netherlands.The copyright holders argued that use of VPNs could lead to copyright infringement and thus the Belgian website was illegally publishing Anne Frank's diary in the Netherlands.The court ruled that VPNs are lawful technical tools.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.https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/vpns-are-lawful-technical-tools-says-eu-court-in-landmark-anne-frank-copyright-ruling
You should have finished off that fucking attic rat earlier and burned that diary with it.
They can just block all VPNs, problem solved
>>539453029ruling says vpns stay
>>539452957VPNs always struck me as odd, as if your ISP doesn't know what websites you're visiting, and as if they aren't kikes harvesting your data anyway. Your entire OS is compromised yet you think you can get away with stuff? Do normies really?
>>539452957>As long as a website employs "state-of-the-art" geo-blocking technology
>>539453028If it makes you feel any better, it wasn't authentic. It was written several years after the war by someone else.
>>539452957Ok.
>>539453029can they really
>>539453181ghost writer (not ghost of her)
>>539452957>copyrighted works in the Netherlands pass into the public domain 70 years after the creator's death>Creator supposedly died in 1945>Work is still copyrightedWeird.
>>539455759>>539452957
Why wouldn't publishers be liable for publishing something that infringes on copyright?
>>539452957>precedentEU law is not precedent-based as far as I'm aware. This isn't the anglosphere.
>>539452957>Anne Frank copyright holders in the Netherlands sued Belgian academic institutes for publishing the diary.lmaooo
>>539452957>we need to effectively ban VPNs because uh Holocaustlmao
>>539452957why would VPNs be related to copyright in any aspect, what?
>>539456644Because it doesn't infringe on copyright according to the laws of the country they operate in. It only violates the copyright laws in another country. Also, the publisher took reasonable steps to avoid violating copyright laws in Netherlands. It's not their fault people used VPNs to get around those steps.
>>539455759the dad claimed authorship so he could continue to collect shekels
