IP reputation matters, but users only care when it stops them from doing what they want. Residential connections often have certain ports blocked and some uses

IP reputation matters, but users only care when it stops them from doing what they want. Residential connections often have certain ports blocked and some uses restricted by the ISP which makes resi connections less ideal for some types of abuse, but great for things like using streaming services. An IP that doesn't work for some services may still work great for others. It seems like a lot of people using VPNs know to try a few different servers/connections until they get the kind of access they want. > how is this not a massive industry-wide DMCA 1201 lawsuit? Is it illegal to bypass geoblocking in the US? I'd think that in the US using a VPN to get around geoblocking could count as 'circumventing a technological measure that controls access to a work' or whatever and could be considered illegal under the DMCA, but perhaps there's also a difference between using a VPN to access content offered outside of your own country you were never authorized to view vs using it to access the same content you'd normally have access to if you weren't just on vacation? I don't think I've heard about any lawsuits against VPNs for that. Either way, I'd agree that advertising a service as a means to bypass geoblocking is probably a bad idea. As long as they don't outright tell people they should use the service to do that though I think an argument could be made that a VPN just provides internet access, and the VPN's ToS/AUP requires users to not to do anything illegal with the connection, and so the user is responsible for what they do with it.