The French courts will decide in the coming months whether VPN providers will have to block IPTV sites that illegally broadcast sports competitions, like internet service providers. Canal+ and the LFP brought the case before the Paris judicial court at the end of last year, with a chance of winning their case.
The reaction of the incriminated providers — NordVPN, Surfshark VPN, ExpressVPN, Cyberghost — was not long in coming. In a press release, the VPN Trust Initiative (VTI) firmly contested the rights holders' request. The VTI "unequivocally" opposes the abusive use of VPNs to access illegal content. The VTI is part of the i2coalition (Internet Infrastructure Coalition), which represents and defends the major players in internet infrastructure.
According to the organization, the initiative by Canal+ and the LFP is targeting the wrong people and "also threatens to compromise the cybersecurity, confidentiality and digital freedom of millions of French residents." The VTI insists that VPNs do not promote piracy, they do not store or promote illegal content. Although we must not kid ourselves: VPNs also allow us to bypass restrictions and blocks on IPTV sites in France.
The VTI points out, however, that imposing restrictions on the free movement of content does not address the root causes of piracy. “Piracy rates continue to rise globally,” the organization argues, which is costing rights holders dearly.
The VTI emphasizes the security that VPN services offer users to protect their data and online security. Blocking IPTV sites would push viewers towards questionable privacy solutions. There are indeed unreliable VPNs whose business is to steal data and monitor traffic. Imposing such a block would therefore amount to “exposing French residents to major cybersecurity risks, thereby compromising their online security.”
The VPN providers are therefore urging rights holders and French authorities to “reconsider their approach and focus on combating piracy at its source, rather than targeting tools that protect users’ privacy and security.” Will the judicial court hear these arguments?
0 Comments