荷兰法院对Anne Frank日记提出的一个案例可以确定使用VPNs访问地理封塞内容在欧盟是否合法。 A Dutch court case over Anne Frank’s diary may define whether using VPNs to access geo-blocked content is legal in the EU.

为出版Anne Frank日记的学术版而进行的法律斗争可能会决定VPN在欧盟的合法性。 A legal battle over publishing a scholarly edition of Anne Frank’s diary may determine the legality of VPNs in the EU. 但瑞士的Anne Frank Funds认为用户可以绕过限制, 使用VPNs, 可能会侵犯版权。 The Dutch Anne Frank Stichting wants to release the edition online with geo-blocking, but the Swiss Anne Frank Fonds argues users could bypass restrictions using VPNs, potentially infringing copyright. 下级法院驳回了申诉,荷兰最高法院已将此案提交欧盟法院。 Lower courts dismissed the claim, and the Dutch Supreme Court has referred the case to the EU’s Court of Justice. 总检察长Rantos认为,通过合法可用的VPN规避地理封锁并不是侵犯版权,特别是当某些地区的权利已经过期时. Advocate General Rantos opined that circumventing geo-blocks via legally available VPNs does not constitute copyright infringement, especially when rights have expired in certain regions. 这一决定可以决定版权是如何跨越欧盟边界强制执行的,并肯定VPNs等工具对于合法获取公共领域作品的合法性。 The decision could shape how copyright is enforced across EU borders and affirm the legitimacy of tools like VPNs for lawful access to public domain works.