EU Censorship News

Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has once again spoken out against what he sees as France's unjust and politically motivated prosecution of him and his company. He said in a statement:

Two years ago, I was detained in Paris by police for 3 days -- the longest they can hold someone before charging them.

In an unprecedented move, French authorities accused the head of a major platform of crimes committed by its users.

That investigation is still ongoing, although it makes less sense with each passing year.

Why?

Because we now have extensive evidence that Telegram was neither worse than other popular platforms at moderation, nor the worst at cooperating with authorities.

So why was Telegram singled out?

Over the last two years, we have seen a pattern emerge in multiple countries: Telegram is quietly asked to grant political favors -- such as illegal censorship or surveillance. When we refuse, local media and non-governmental organizations launch orchestrated campaigns portraying Telegram as a cesspool of crime, from child pornography to terrorism.

Our moderation is no worse than that of other major platforms. Yet these campaigns instill the idea that Telegram should be persecuted or restricted.

Suddenly, officials start caring about crime and protecting children -- but only on platforms that reject their secret political demands. Platforms that accept such deals get away with almost anything -- including literally selling ads promoting child pornography.

Is the French investigation against me political? It certainly fits the pattern we see elsewhere, mostly in authoritarian countries. And it definitely raises questions.

In time, this investigation may itself be investigated -- especially now that Macron's war against free speech is facing pushback. This month, France's Constitutional Council struck down his social media ban for children under 15 on freedom-of-expression grounds.

In the end, freedom and truth will prevail

The EU's highest court has ruled that publishers who use state-of-the-art geo-blocking are not liable for copyright infringement, even when users bypass their restrictions with a VPN. The ruling, which was handed down in the landmark copyright battle involving digital copies of the iconic Anne Frank diary, also shields VPN providers from liability.

While the diary's importance is universally recognized, the accessibility of its digital manuscripts has been at the centre of a Dutch copyright battle that eventually made its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU ).

The legal dispute was triggered by differences in copyright protection terms in the EU. Parts of Anne Franks manuscripts remain protected in the Netherlands until 2037, while the same material entered the public domain in Belgium and many other EU member states years ago.

To navigate these conflicting laws, the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting published a scholarly edition online using state-of-the-art geo-blocking to prevent Dutch residents from accessing the site. Visitors from the Netherlands and other countries where the work is protected are met with a clear message, informing them about these access restrictions:

The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations=

Despite these blocking measures, the Swiss-based Anne Frank Fonds was not pleased. The Fonds essentially argued that if a block isn't 100% bypass-proof, the content shouldnt be online at all.

The Dutch lower court dismissed this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The Fonds appealed, without result, and the case is now heading back to the Dutch Supreme Court, which referred several questions to the EUs top court to decide the fate of VPN neutrality and the sufficiency of geo-blocking.

In January, Advocate General Rantos published his opinion concluding that geo-blocking is a sufficient measure and that VPN providers are neutral intermediaries. That opinion was not binding, but it set the tone for what followed.

Last week, the CJEUs Second Chamber delivered its final judgment. The Court ruled that a work thats in the public domain in some EU member states, but still under copyright in another, can be published on a geo-blocked website without being considered an infringing communication to the public in the protected country.

The Court recognized that geo-blocking can be circumvented with a VPN, but that is not the decisive factor. If a publisher specifically chose to use a state-of-the-art geo-blocking to block visitors from a specific country, it is clear that these people are not the intended audience.

The Court also rejected the idea that publishers should be required to use stricter access controls, such as subscriptions or login requirements. Imposing those measures would disproportionately restrict free access for users in public-domain countries.

VPN providers are also not liable if they are used to bypass state-of-the-art geo-blocking measures. The EUs top court sees VPN providers as neutral intermediaries, referring to previous rulings where YouTube and Uploaded were not held liable for pirating users. As an intermediary, a VPN itself simply acts as a secure, neutral routing tool thats not communicating anything to the public.

This conclusion is significant. It effectively confirms that the EUs highest court does not see VPN providers as copyright infringers simply because their technology enables users to bypass geographical restrictions. The Broader Fallout