6 ms·
For those who (like me) missed the essential key word in the OP's title: This ruling is about copyright, and seems mostly unrelated to recent conversations abo
by sebastiennight 3mo ago
For those who (like me) missed the essential key word in the OP's title:
This ruling is about copyright, and seems mostly unrelated to recent conversations about escaping censorship and surveilance, and the overall final throes of the open web.
It's still pretty important since the lawsuit filed by the Anne Frank Fonds could be caricatured as "if this content is illegal in our country, it should not be on the Internet in other countries, because our citizens can still circumvent the publisher's geofence and access it" which would have wild consequences if that line of thought was applied.
But, still:
> 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.
Could be conceived to have a tenuous link to the current debate on censorship, surveilance, etc.
- petcat 3mo agoSomewhat related to this same debate on censorship: French regulators order block of Polymarket's website [0] > The French gambling regulator said the site's continued availability constituted advertising. A ban on financial transactions to the site was already in place. After failing to compel Polymarket to geoblock France, it's crazy that French "regulators" can just order ISPs to block a website without any judicial review just because the mere existence of it on the internet constitutes "advertising" to French people. It seems like the EU in general is struggling badly with how to control internet access. Whether it's blocking VPNs, requiring access to private chats, or just blocking websites completely. [0] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/07/17/france-blocks-access-to-polymarket_6755581_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/07/17/france-b...
- spiderfarmer 3mo agoI don’t think it’s crazy to enforce laws, especially given the leeway the government gave that predatory website.
- VWWHFSfQ 3mo ago> given the leeway the government gave that predatory website. They are only blocking it because the French gambling mafia/authority is not getting their cut. They do not care in any way at all about a "predatory" gambling website. They just want their share.
- lokar 3mo agoThey want them to follow legally enacted laws in an open democracy.
- sam_lowry_ 3mo agoIt's all about nuance. The gambling mafia comment is pure gold.
- irishcoffee 3mo agoIf you’re aware of the organization called “FIFA” you can’t believe this is true. I responded to the wrong comment, I ment to respond to the GP.
- Fnoord 3mo agoFifa is Swiss, not French.
- irishcoffee 3mo agoI didn’t say anything about the French.
- spiderfarmer 3mo agoSo why bring it up.
- irishcoffee 3mo ago
- Sleaker 3mo agoDevils advocate question: Isn't registering an ip to name essentially advertising? You're paying a registrar to return your Internet address location when searched for.
- redeeman 3mo agono, that is a ridiculous line of reasoning
- sophacles 3mo agoNot really. Why would people pay so much for the $brand_name.com, etc if there wasn't a marketing component to it?
- anamexis 3mo agoHaving a marketable address is not advertising.
- nightski 3mo agoI mean I pay for a domain for my homelab. No one else uses it.
- stackghost 3mo agoMarketing and advertising are two related but distinct functions.
- ButlerianJihad 3mo agoNot merely DNS names, but in IP routing, announcing a route is known as "advertising" it. You and your ISP are literally advertising a path for others to find your site via TCP/IP.
- AnthonyMouse 3mo agoThe two obvious problems being that a) you're advertising that so that people in the countries you actually intend to do business in can find it, and b) the same IP address may be hosting thousands of independent sites any subset of which could be intended to be accessed by people in the other jurisdiction, and publishing the route is done for them.
- dgellow 3mo agoAre you aware it’s the case in the US too? I don’t see what is supposed to be bad or terrifying here. French regulators (why the scare quotes?) entire reason d‘être is what you frame as suspicious, but it’s pretty standard, the state governs the infrastructure in its territory
- petcat 3mo agoUS regulators don't order ISPs to block websites. The FBI will occasionally seize a domain, but only after a court order.
- AnthonyMouse 3mo agoAlso notice that the FBI has no jurisdiction over foreign domains. It happens that the .com (in addition to .us) registry is in the US, but e.g. the .ru registry is in Russia and not under the jurisdiction of US courts.
- inigyou 3mo agoUnless it's .tv or .to or .me or many others that are administered by organisations under the control of the US. The US seized Telegram's domain t.me by using an "OFAC sanction" whatever that is.
- stackghost 3mo ago>US regulators don't order ISPs to block websites. Of course they do, mostly for intellectual property reasons.
- coldtea 3mo ago>It seems like the EU in general is struggling badly with how to control internet access. It struggles badly with how to control everything more and more. What was an economic union of markets has become an uber-government that gives more and more power to itself. Not that the US or the rest is far behind, but in this case it's accompanied with even more incompetence and disconnected to the real problems.
- vrganj 3mo agoThe EU was never just an economic union of markets. Hell, the Schuman declaration from 1950, the closest thing it has to a founding document, calls for an ever closer union.
- ____mr____ 3mo ago> it's crazy that French "regulators" can just order ISPs to block a website without any judicial review just because the mere existence of it on the internet constitutes "advertising" to French people. This is entirely normal if you subscribe to any form of current/past neoliberal ideology surrounding trade, borders and embargos. If you believe that an embargo towards a certain country or business is valid because you believe they are a threat to national/public security, I see little difference between that and ISPs being forbidden from working with certain companies/websites/ip ranges
- croes 3mo ago> which would have wild consequences if that line of thought was applied. Yeah, like third party sanctions. Oh wait…