Court of Justice of the European Union ruling on VPN's, copyright, and "traveling".

[gbm]

https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-pr...pyright-ruling

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.

bernie

[Cactus Chef]

That reminds me...I should really setup a second eReaderIQ email for AmazonUK watchlists. I end up missing a bunch of sales there unless I'm casually checking the Kobo UK Deals page.

[jhowell]

As far as I can tell the ruling indicates that publishers and VPN providers cannot be blamed for these copyright violations but I do not see any mention of the legal status of the people who are actually using the VPNs.

[gbm]

I have not read the ruling--have read 2 U.S. court of appeals rulings today--but that is the kicker. Probably would not make financial sense to go after the readers.

bernie

Originally Posted by jhowell

As far as I can tell the ruling indicates that publishers and VPN providers cannot be blamed for these copyright violations but I do not see any mention of the legal status of the people who are actually using the VPNs.

[crossi]

I simply have never understood the logic of these laws. If an American flies to London and buys a book from a British bookstore published by a British publisher, it's all fine. After all, the publisher and eventually the author get their money. If they skip the plane trip and buy the same book as an e-book, the publisher and author STILL get paid. What is the difference?

[rkomar]

Some publisher paid money to get the distribution rights in their area. If people there buy the books from some other publisher, then the one who bought the rights is going to get a bit sore and start wondering if what they got is worth what was charged. The whole system starts to fall apart if the distribution rights get watered down. So, both sides do their best to keep things working as expected for them. People buying books from anywhere they like is bad for the business of regional distribution rights.

[Aleron Ives]

Also, publishers know they can't legally get away with stopping you from getting on a plane to buy a book published in a different country. They are much more optimistic about their ability to stop you from visiting a website to buy a book published in a different country, though. Digital goods offer far more options for restricting your rights than analogue goods do. If publishers could have implemented regional lockout codes into paperbacks so that you couldn't read them across international borders, they surely would have done so.

[maddz]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Some publisher paid money to get the distribution rights in their area. If people there buy the books from some other publisher, then the one who bought the rights is going to get a bit sore and start wondering if what they got is worth what was charged. The whole system starts to fall apart if the distribution rights get watered down. So, both sides do their best to keep things working as expected for them. People buying books from anywhere they like is bad for the business of regional distribution rights.

If that's the case, then yes. However, there are numerous books where no regional publisher has the ebook rights and the only way to [legitimately] purchase them is by using a VPN and travelling. At least then the author and publisher are being paid which is better than not being paid.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Some publisher paid money to get the distribution rights in their area. If people there buy the books from some other publisher, then the one who bought the rights is going to get a bit sore and start wondering if what they got is worth what was charged. The whole system starts to fall apart if the distribution rights get watered down. So, both sides do their best to keep things working as expected for them. People buying books from anywhere they like is bad for the business of regional distribution rights.

The publisher really only pays author on sales. They may pay an advance, but the author only gets royalties when the advance is paid off.

The publishers agreed on a world carve-up, mostly for English language. Often it means reduced royalties for authors as not all publishers will take up the author.

It's the geo-limiting that should be illegal, on anything, physical or downloads. It's at root a Cartel-like behaviour.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Aleron Ives

If publishers could have implemented regional lockout codes into paperbacks so that you couldn't read them across international borders, they surely would have done so.

They did with DVDs and BD, though DVD region locking is dead (though people with PAL/Secam regions don't want NTSC, 480 line vs 576 line! Or even 3:2 pull down) and BD are starting to offer some region free.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by crossi

If they skip the plane trip and buy the same book as an e-book, the publisher and author STILL get paid. What is the difference?

A pbook and an ebook are not the same product. One is physical, one digital. Why should the same rules apply to such materially different products?

Originally Posted by maddz

If that's the case, then yes. However, there are numerous books where no regional publisher has the ebook rights and the only way to [legitimately] purchase them is by using a VPN and travelling. At least then the author and publisher are being paid which is better than not being paid.

Well, that's on the rights' owners. Unless you mean that the alternative is piracy, in which case I'd say that you can always read something else.

However, I admit that I also use the "better to be paid than not" rationale for buying books abroad that aren't available in the US, even though I think it's a dingy gray area. I could always wait and see; I've got a lot to read already. It gets really, really dodgy when people "travel" to save money.

Writers and corporations are entitled to the protections provided their intellectual property through copyright law. People are going to do what they're going to do but my opinion is that they should be honest about it at least to themselves instead of coming up with largely specious justifications for getting around restrictions. And I say that acknowledging that I can be just as hypocritical as anyone else. (See above.)

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by issybird

A pbook and an ebook are not the same product. One is physical, one digital. Why should the same rules apply to such materially different products?

They shouldn't. That's the point. Georestrictions on digital products are ridiculous.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by crossi

If an American flies to London and buys a book from a British bookstore published by a British publisher, it's all fine.

It is not commercially viable to travel to buy physical books, but it is trivial to do it online. So the restrictions have to be in place to prevent scalping and other misuse of the platform.

[Courant]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

It is not commercially viable to travel to buy physical books, but it is trivial to do it online. So the restrictions have to be in place to prevent scalping and other misuse of the platform.

This is a big part of it, but it is also more complicated than that. One can still buy books from another country and have them shipped. The internet makes things complicated for a whole bunch of laws, because someone physically in Europe can make a purchase in the US, there is a question of jurisdiction. So theoretically an online shop intending to sell to Americans can become a international business deal.

[DiapDealer]

Laws are rarely enacted to bring sense, order, and clarity to the general public.

I'm not saying I never break laws. But when I do, I don't pretend I'm somehow justified (or on the side of "sense") whenever I do so.

I'm also going to mention that I hate the word travel (used in quotes) in this regard. One is not travelling. One is obfuscating, deceiving, and/or lying to get what one wants. Period. I'd have much more respect for people who say they thwart geo-restrictions and then stop before any "buts" or "becauses" come along.

I personally jaywalk all the time. The End.