Geo-Restriction: A Definite Guide

Geo-restriction is not new for most of us. When you travel, you will notice your Netflix account can access different contents from those at home.

There are some ways to bypass the geo-restriction. For example, you can use a web proxy, a VPN, or smart DNS to spoof your location and, therefore, bypass the geo-restriction easily.

This post explains everything you need to know about geo-restriction, including the history and intention of the geo-restriction, how it is implemented and enforced, how to bypass geo-restriction, and legal issues related to bypassing geo-restrictions.

What is geo-restriction on the Internet?
A brief history of geo-restriction on the Internet
How is geo-restriction enforced?
How to bypass geo-restrictions?
Is it legal to bypass the geo-restriction?
Some legal cases involving bypassing geo-restrictions

What is geo-restriction on the Internet?

Geo-restriction refers to the practice of limiting access to online content based on the user’s geographic location. This is typically done to comply with copyright laws, licensing agreements, and other legal requirements.

Geo-restriction can prevent users from accessing websites, streaming services, and other online content from outside a specific geographic region or limit their access to certain features or content within the site.

Geo-restriction is often used by content providers to prevent users from accessing content that is not licensed for their region. For example, a streaming service may have licensing agreements with different studios or distributors for different geographic regions. To comply with these agreements, the service may block users from outside the licensed region from accessing certain content.

While geo-restriction can be an effective way for content providers to comply with legal requirements and protect their intellectual property, it can also be frustrating for users who want to access content from outside their geographic region. This has led to the development of tools and services, such as Smart DNS and VPNs, that can help users bypass geo-restriction and access content from anywhere in the world.

It’s important to note that bypassing geo-restriction may violate the terms of service for some content providers and may also be illegal in some jurisdictions. It’s important to use these tools responsibly and to be aware of any legal or ethical considerations before attempting to access geo-restricted content.

A brief history of geo-restriction on the Internet

Geo-restriction has been around for decades, but it became more prevalent with the rise of the internet and digital media.

In the early days of the Internet, the content was largely accessible to anyone with an internet connection, regardless of their geographic location. However, as the internet became a more popular medium for distributing digital content, content owners began to implement geo-restriction to protect their intellectual property and comply with legal requirements.

The first major example of geo-restriction was the implementation of regional encoding on DVD and Blu-ray discs in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Regional encoding is a form of geo-restriction that prevents DVDs and Blu-ray discs from being played in a region outside of the one for which they are intended. This was done to comply with licensing agreements and to prevent piracy and copyright infringement.

Geo-restriction also became more prevalent with the rise of streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+. These services use geo-restriction to comply with licensing agreements and to prevent users from accessing content that is not licensed for their region.

As a result, users in different regions may have access to different libraries of content and may be blocked from accessing certain shows or movies altogether.

Today, geo-restriction is a common practice used by many content providers to protect their intellectual property and comply with legal requirements.

How is geo-restriction enforced?

Geo-restriction is typically enforced using IP geolocation technology.

The enforcing process involves identifying the geographic location of a user based on their IP address, which is a unique identifier assigned to every device connected to the internet.

IP geolocation databases are used to match IP addresses with geographic locations, allowing content providers to determine whether a user is accessing their site from within a licensed region.

So, here is the loophole. Users can access contents from an IP different from their physical geo-location to bypass the geo-restriction.

How to bypass geo-restrictions?

There are several easy ways to bypass geo-restrictions and access content that is blocked in your region. Here are some of the most popular methods:

Smart DNS: Smart DNS is a technology that allows you to change the DNS settings on your device to access geo-restricted content. Smart DNS works by redirecting your traffic through a server located in a region where the content is available, making it appear as though you are accessing the content from that region.
VPN: A VPN (Virtual Private Network) allows you to connect to a server located in a different geographic region, encrypting your traffic and masking your IP address. This makes it appear as though you are accessing the internet from the server’s location, allowing you to access geo-restricted content. See this guide on the differences between VPN and Smart DNS.
Proxy servers: Proxy servers work by acting as an intermediary between your device and the internet. When you connect to a proxy server, your traffic is routed through the server, which can be located in a different geographic region, allowing you to access content that is blocked in your region.
Browser extensions: Some browser extensions, such as Hola and ZenMate, allow you to access geo-restricted content by routing your traffic through a server located in a different geographic region. These extensions are easy to install and use and can be a good option for accessing content from specific websites.

It’s important to note that while these methods can be effective for bypassing geo-restrictions, they may violate the terms of service for some content providers and may also be illegal in some jurisdictions.

Is it legal to bypass the geo-restriction?

In most regions, bypassing the geo-restriction itself is not illegal. But it may violate the terms of service that you were forced to agree upon.

United States of America

In the US, there is no clear legal consensus on whether it is legal or illegal to bypass geo-restrictions.

However, it is generally considered a violation of the terms of service of the content provider. For example, Netflix’s terms of service prohibit users from using VPNs or other proxy services to access content that is not available in their region.

It is also worth noting that while using a VPN or other circumvention tool to access geo-restricted content may not be illegal, it can still be a violation of copyright law. For example, if a user downloads or shares copyrighted content that they accessed through a VPN, they could still be liable for copyright infringement.

EU

In the European Union (EU), the legal situation regarding bypassing geo-restrictions is somewhat complex and depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

On the one hand, the EU has implemented regulations to protect the free movement of goods and services within the EU. These regulations aim to prevent unjustified geo-blocking, which is the practice of denying access to goods or services based on a customer’s nationality, place of residence, or place of establishment. In other words, if a consumer is within the EU and has paid for access to a particular service, they should be able to access that service regardless of where they are located within the EU.

On the other hand, the EU recognizes the right of content providers to restrict access to their content in certain geographic regions based on licensing agreements or other business reasons. Therefore, using a VPN or other circumvention tool to access geo-restricted content could potentially be in violation of the content provider’s terms of service.

So, while there is no clear legal consensus on the use of VPNs or other circumvention tools to bypass geo-restrictions in the EU, consumers should be aware that the content provider’s terms of service may prohibit such actions. It is always advisable to review the terms of service of the content provider before attempting to bypass geo-restrictions.

China

Some countries, for example, China, have specific laws against the use of VPNs and other circumvention tools. In these countries, using a VPN to access geo-restricted content could result in legal consequences.

Overall, the legality of bypassing geo-restrictions can vary depending on the country and the specific circumstances of the situation. It is always advisable to consult with a legal expert or review the terms of service of the content provider before attempting to bypass geo-restrictions.

Some legal cases involving bypassing geo-restrictions

So far, there are no legal cases against individual users for bypassing geo-restrictions.

But there are some cases against service providers who facilitate geo-restriction bypassing.

1. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Bleem, LLC (2000)

The Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Bleem, LLC case was a legal dispute between Sony and Bleem, LLC over the sale of a software emulator called “Bleem!” that allowed PlayStation games to be played on a PC.

Bleem! was designed to work with Sony’s PlayStation console and allowed users to play PlayStation games on their PC. Sony sued Bleem!, alleging that the emulator violated its copyright and trademark rights and that it enabled users to bypass regional restrictions on PlayStation games.

Sony argued that the emulator was a derivative work of the PlayStation console and its software and that it infringed on Sony’s copyright and trademark rights. Sony also alleged that Bleem! enabled users to bypass regional restrictions on PlayStation games, which violated Sony’s licensing agreements with game developers.

Bleem! argued that its software did not infringe on Sony’s copyright or trademark rights and that it did not enable users to bypass regional restrictions on PlayStation games. Bleem! also argued that its software was protected by fair use provisions of copyright law, as it allowed users to play PlayStation games on a PC, which was not possible with the PlayStation console alone.

In the end, the case was settled out of court with Bleem! agreeing to pay Sony a licensing fee for its use of PlayStation software in the emulator. While the case did not result in a definitive legal ruling on the legality of emulator software, it highlighted the legal complexities involved in geo-restriction and copyright law in the digital age.

2. Nintendo of America Inc. v. PC Box S.A. (2003)

The Nintendo of America Inc. v. PC Box S.A. case was a legal dispute between Nintendo and a Spanish company called PC Box over the sale of devices that allowed users to play unauthorized copies of Nintendo games on the Game Boy Advance.

PC Box sold a device called the “Game Enhancer” that allowed users to play unauthorized copies of Nintendo games on the Game Boy Advance. The device also allowed users to bypass regional restrictions on Nintendo games, enabling them to play games from different regions on their Game Boy Advance.

Nintendo sued PC Box, alleging that the Game Enhancer violated its copyright and trademark rights and that it enabled users to engage in software piracy and bypass regional restrictions on Nintendo games.

PC Box argued that the Game Enhancer did not infringe on Nintendo’s copyright or trademark rights and that it did not facilitate software piracy. PC Box also argued that the device was not specifically designed to bypass regional restrictions on Nintendo games but rather to enhance the gaming experience for users.

The case was ultimately settled out of court, with PC Box agreeing to pay Nintendo damages and to stop selling the Game Enhancer device.

3. Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v. RealNetworks, Inc. (2009)

The Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v. RealNetworks, Inc. case was a legal dispute between Universal Studios and RealNetworks over the sale of a software product called RealDVD, which allowed users to make copies of DVD movies and store them on their computer’s hard drive.

Universal Studios sued RealNetworks, alleging that the RealDVD software violated its copyright and trademark rights and that it enabled users to engage in piracy and bypass regional restrictions on DVD movies.

Universal Studios argued that the RealDVD software allowed users to make unauthorized copies of DVD movies, which violated its copyright and trademark rights. Universal Studios also argued that the software enabled users to bypass regional restrictions on DVD movies, allowing them to play movies from different regions on their computers.

RealNetworks argued that the RealDVD software was protected by fair use provisions of copyright law, as it allowed users to make backup copies of their DVD movies for personal use. RealNetworks also argued that the software did not enable users to bypass regional restrictions on DVD movies and that it included digital rights management (DRM) features that prevented piracy.

In the end, the case was settled out of court, with RealNetworks agreeing to pay Universal Studios damages and to stop selling the RealDVD software. The case highlighted the challenges of balancing the interests of copyright holders and consumers.

4. Cyberlink Corp. v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC (2018)

The Cyberlink Corp. v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC case was a legal dispute between Cyberlink and Redbox over the sale of a software product called Redbox On Demand, which allowed users to rent and stream movies on their computers and mobile devices.

Cyberlink sued Redbox, alleging that the Redbox On Demand service violated its copyright and trademark rights, and that it enabled users to engage in piracy and bypass regional restrictions on movie rentals.

Cyberlink argued that Redbox On Demand enabled users to rent and stream movies that were only available in certain regions, which violated its copyright and trademark rights. Cyberlink also argued that the service enabled users to engage in piracy by allowing them to make unauthorized copies of rented movies.

Redbox argued that the Redbox On Demand service did not violate Cyberlink’s copyright or trademark rights, as it obtained the necessary licenses to stream movies from the copyright holders. Redbox also argued that the service did not enable users to engage in piracy, as it included digital rights management (DRM) features that prevented unauthorized copying.

The case was eventually settled out of court, with Redbox agreeing to pay Cyberlink damages and to stop offering certain movies for rent on the Redbox On Demand service.

5. Netflix v. many VPN providers

Netflix has sued several DNS-based proxy and VPN service providers in the past for facilitating the bypassing of geographic restrictions on its platform.

Here are some examples.

mentioned:

Netflix, Inc. v. CCI Enterprises, Inc. (2015)

Netflix sued CCI Enterprises, a Florida-based company, for promoting and selling VPN services that allowed users to access Netflix content from different regions.
Netflix argued that CCI Enterprises violated its terms of service by promoting and facilitating the use of VPNs to access content from different regions.
CCI Enterprises argued that it did not violate Netflix’s terms of service because it did not directly access Netflix’s content and only provided a VPN service.
The case was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Netflix, Inc. v. Unblock-Us (2016)

Netflix sued Unblock-Us, a Canadian-based company that provided DNS-based proxy services, for promoting the use of its service to access Netflix content from different regions.
Netflix argued that Unblock-Us violated its terms of service and engaged in unfair competition by promoting its service as a way to access Netflix content from different regions.
Unblock-Us argued that its service was legal and did not violate Netflix’s terms of service because it only provided a DNS-based proxy service and did not manipulate or access Netflix’s content directly.
The case was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Netflix, Inc. v. Tuxler (2016)

Netflix sued Tuxler, a company that provided a free VPN service, for promoting and allowing the use of its service to access Netflix content from different regions.
Netflix argued that Tuxler violated its terms of service and engaged in unfair competition by promoting its service as a way to access Netflix content from different regions.
Tuxler argued that its service was legal and did not violate Netflix’s terms of service because it only provided a VPN service and did not manipulate or access Netflix’s content directly.
The case was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Netflix, Inc. v. WW Net Services, S.A. (2017)

Netflix sued WW Net Services, a Swiss-based company, for promoting and selling VPN services that allowed users to access Netflix content from different regions.
Netflix argued that WW Net Services violated its terms of service and engaged in unfair competition by promoting its service as a way to access Netflix content from different regions.
WW Net Services argued that its service was legal and did not violate Netflix’s terms of service because it only provided a VPN service and did not manipulate or access Netflix’s content directly.
The case was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

In all of these cases, Netflix argued that the use of VPNs and proxy services to access content from different regions violated its terms of service and engaged in unfair competition. The service providers argued that their services were legal and did not directly manipulate or access Netflix’s content.

The outcomes of these cases were not made public, as all of them were settled out of court. However, it is likely that the settlements involved the service providers agreeing to stop promoting their services as a way to access Netflix content from different regions.

Do you have any questions on geo-restriction on the Internet?

Please let us know in the comment box below if you have any questions about geo-restriction or want to share your thoughts on it

You can also reach us through the following:

From our Facebook page
Contact us page.

Safe surging!

Table of Contents