I do not understand your question. If you surf the web you should use a vpn. No matter your location. Some locations ask for vpn usage more than others.
Many countries have lax, unenforced or altogether nonexistent copyright laws. Even some EU member states as far as I know don’t require VPN usage for piracy
It’s not the copyright law that is lax in these countries, but rather the level of monitoring and enforcement required by ISPs. For most ISPs they gain nothing by sending anti-piracy letters to customers in the absence of any particular law that mandates ISPs enforce anti-piracy. Instead they may find customers leave and go to a competitor. The most they do is the bare minimum required by Govt, usually blocking certain domains and only sending letters if a third party has done the hard work of identifying the IP address of a pirate. When studios sue ISPs they generally lose, or go for settlements (see BMG vs Cox). ISPs have spent a lot of time and money lobbying to be left out of piracy enforcement.
You could compare it to underage drinking, a bar’s main incentive to not serve underage customers is to avoid large fines for doing so. If those fines didn’t exist one might assume many bars would be more lax on checking ID. A bar might argue that if underage drinking is illegal then that’s a matter between the drinker and the police, it’s not the bar’s job to spend money on security to check patron IDs. This is essentially what ISPs have argued.
I do not understand your question. If you surf the web you should use a vpn. No matter your location. Some locations ask for vpn usage more than others.
Talking about being a pirate in the high seas.
Torrents and 3rd party sites, and such.
In that case yes ofcourse. Why even ask. Pirating is illegal. Vpns are cheap. I can recommend Proton or mullvad
Many countries have lax, unenforced or altogether nonexistent copyright laws. Even some EU member states as far as I know don’t require VPN usage for piracy
It’s not the copyright law that is lax in these countries, but rather the level of monitoring and enforcement required by ISPs. For most ISPs they gain nothing by sending anti-piracy letters to customers in the absence of any particular law that mandates ISPs enforce anti-piracy. Instead they may find customers leave and go to a competitor. The most they do is the bare minimum required by Govt, usually blocking certain domains and only sending letters if a third party has done the hard work of identifying the IP address of a pirate. When studios sue ISPs they generally lose, or go for settlements (see BMG vs Cox). ISPs have spent a lot of time and money lobbying to be left out of piracy enforcement.
You could compare it to underage drinking, a bar’s main incentive to not serve underage customers is to avoid large fines for doing so. If those fines didn’t exist one might assume many bars would be more lax on checking ID. A bar might argue that if underage drinking is illegal then that’s a matter between the drinker and the police, it’s not the bar’s job to spend money on security to check patron IDs. This is essentially what ISPs have argued.
and if you are broke as heck just use proton vpn free tier or calyx vpn on mobile
deleted by creator