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

欧盟法院在具有里程碑意义的版权裁决中表示：“VPN 是合法的技术工具”

VPN providers aren’t liable for copyright infringement, said the EU Court. The Court explicitly recognized VPNs as “lawful technical tools.” The case centered on the copyright battle involving Anne Frank’s diary. 欧盟法院表示，VPN 提供商不对版权侵权负责。法院明确承认 VPN 是“合法的技术工具”。该案件的核心是围绕《安妮日记》的版权之争。

In a major victory for digital rights and common sense, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has officially categorized Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) as “lawful technical tools” while establishing new boundaries for online copyright disputes. 在数字权利和常识的一次重大胜利中，欧盟法院（CJEU）正式将虚拟专用网络（VPN）归类为“合法的技术工具”，并为在线版权纠纷确立了新的界限。

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? 这项于 2026 年 7 月作出的里程碑式判决，源于一场关于安妮·弗兰克历史手稿在线发布的复杂法律诉讼。该案的核心迫使欧洲最高法官回答了一个高度技术性的问题：如果出版商积极尝试阻止特定国家的访问者，但用户使用规避软件越过数字边界，出版商是否仍触犯了法律？

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. 根据欧盟法院的裁定，答案是否定的。只要网站采用了“最先进”的地理封锁技术，出版商就不会仅仅因为有决心的读者决定启动 VPN 来绕过限制，而承担版权侵权责任。

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. More importantly for privacy advocates, the court firmly pushed back against the demonization of privacy software, cementing the legitimate status of VPN providers across the European Union. 这一裁决树立了一个巨大的先例。它证实了版权持有者不能仅仅因为 VPN 的存在，就声称网站的安全措施完全无效。对于隐私倡导者来说，更重要的是，法院坚决反对将隐私软件妖魔化，从而巩固了 VPN 提供商在整个欧盟的合法地位。

The Anne Frank dispute explained

安妮·弗兰克版权纠纷解析

The legal tug-of-war began when a coalition of Dutch and Belgian academic institutions published a free, scholarly online edition of Anne Frank’s manuscripts. Because copyright laws are not fully harmonized across Europe, the legal status of the famous diary varies by territory. In Belgium and roughly 60 other countries, the writings entered the public domain years ago. However, in the Netherlands, parts of the text remain protected by copyright until 2037. 这场法律拉锯战始于荷兰和比利时的一系列学术机构发布了安妮·弗兰克手稿的免费学术在线版本。由于欧洲各国的版权法并未完全统一，这本日记的法律地位因地区而异。在比利时和大约 60 个其他国家，这些作品多年前已进入公有领域。然而，在荷兰，部分文本的版权保护期将持续到 2037 年。

To respect this territorial divide, the publishers hosted the site in Belgium and used geo-blocking to prevent access from Dutch IP addresses. Visitors from the Netherlands were met with a notice explaining why they couldn’t enter the site. The Anne Frank Fonds, which holds the Dutch copyright, sued. They argued that because standard VPNs easily allow users to mask their true IP address and spoof a Belgian location, the scholarly website was effectively communicating the protected work to the Dutch public. 为了尊重这种地域划分，出版商将网站托管在比利时，并使用地理封锁来阻止来自荷兰 IP 地址的访问。来自荷兰的访问者会看到一条通知，解释他们为何无法进入该网站。持有荷兰版权的安妮·弗兰克基金会（Anne Frank Fonds）提起诉讼。他们辩称，由于标准 VPN 可以让用户轻松掩盖其真实 IP 地址并伪装成比利时位置，该学术网站实际上是在向荷兰公众传播受保护的作品。

The CJEU ultimately rejected this argument. In its judgment, the court noted that while geo-blocking measures can inevitably be circumvented, “the possibility of such circumvention cannot, in itself and in all circumstances, be a decisive factor in finding those measures to be inadequate and, therefore, ineffective.” 欧盟法院最终驳回了这一论点。法院在判决中指出，虽然地理封锁措施不可避免地会被规避，但“这种规避的可能性本身，在任何情况下，都不能成为判定这些措施不足且因此无效的决定性因素。”

Why this matters for the internet and VPN users

这对互联网和 VPN 用户意味着什么

For everyday internet users, the “So What?” of this ruling is deeply reassuring. It validates that using a VPN to encrypt your online traffic, hide your IP address, or bypass digital borders is a legitimate use of consumer technology. 对于普通互联网用户来说，这一裁决的“意义”令人深感欣慰。它证实了使用 VPN 加密在线流量、隐藏 IP 地址或绕过数字边界是消费类技术的合法用途。

The judges explicitly shielded VPN companies from collateral damage in piracy lawsuits, a topic that has sparked intense debate among European ISPs and rightsholders. The court specifically argued that the provider of a VPN or similar services is not liable for users bypassing restrictions. By placing the legal burden on publishers to maintain “state-of-the-art” digital fences, rather than demanding absolute, impossible perfection, the EU has drawn a pragmatic line in the sand. 法官明确保护了 VPN 公司免受盗版诉讼的附带损害，这一话题曾在欧洲互联网服务提供商（ISP）和版权持有者之间引发激烈辩论。法院特别指出，VPN 或类似服务的提供商不对用户绕过限制的行为负责。通过将维护“最先进”数字围栏的法律责任交给出版商，而不是要求绝对的、不可能实现的完美，欧盟划定了一条务实的界限。

Publishers aren’t expected to build unhackable walls, and VPN providers aren’t responsible for the actions of users who climb over them. Ultimately, this ruling proves that the borderless internet can still coexist with territorial copyright laws, provided everyone uses the right technical safeguards. 出版商无需建造无法攻破的围墙，VPN 提供商也不对翻越围墙的用户行为负责。最终，这一裁决证明，只要各方使用正确的技术保障措施，无国界的互联网仍然可以与地域性版权法共存。