7 ms·

Portugal Pushes Law to Partially Ban DRM, Allow Circumvention

187 points by unhammer 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago
For context, the current government is composed of a center-left party supported by two "far-left" parties, which have the majority despite the center-right party having come out on top in number of votes. The bill comes from one of the far-left parties (Left Block). That said, it's fairly mild: only says one can't use DRM to prevent users from enjoying their legal rights, and there's no penalty, except that the DRM breakers won't get fined by our (EU-mandated) anti-circumvention laws, if I'm reading it correctly. And they haven't revoked the bill passed by the previous right-wing government, which forced ISPs to block access to a bunch of "piracy" related sites (TPB, Kickass, etc). Also, the private copying exception that they mention (and which already existed) doesn't come from free: we have an extra tax on storage devices that gets pooled into a fund to "compensate" authors for that exception.
- fao_ 10y ago
  > we have an extra tax on storage devices that gets pooled into a fund to "compensate" authors for that exception. That's... a surprisingly (and refreshingly) pragmatic way to deal with that percieved problem, to be honest. It'd be nice to see more countries going with solutions like that, rather than the old "Do as I say or I'll beat you over the head"
  - icebraining 10y ago
    It's fairly common nowadays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
    - pedrocr 10y ago
      It's not that common and it wouldn't make it any less of a travesty. It's like taxing all furniture on the off chance you'll use it to store your vinyl records. And like with furniture an increasing majority of your media is used to store your own content (e.g., the video of your kid from your brand new 4K camera) so this isn't even directionally correct.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        It's a tax, not a payment. Sure, there's some attempt to target it at people who can actually enjoy that right (can't copy stuff if you have nowhere to copy it to), but it's not supposed to be an exchange for use.
        pedrocr 10y ago
        We already have a tax for content authors, this is supposed to be much more targeted. Instead all it does is make local electronics retailers even less competitive when compared to the online players. This is also a travesty because you're supposedly being taxed for the privilege of enjoying something you are already paying for. In reality it's even worse because this is only relevant to extract money from those who are not buying your content. The ones who are buying your content already have a pricing relationship with you where more or less money can be exchanged for more or less service. At the end of the day this was just a way for entrenched interests to extract money from the population that wouldn't normally be given to them because they don't produce content that interests them.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    >> an extra tax on storage Who cares about due process and the market, just presume everybody is liable and tax them to guarantee profit to an industry? What a complete perversion of basic capitalism and rule of law. > It'd be nice to see more countries going with solutions like that It's nice to pay an extra tax to prop up a poorly-run industry? >>> There will also be an exception for private copying. While it's not clear precisely what is meant by "private copying", time-shifting was ruled a fair use in the Betamax case, without the need for a levy.
    - lightbyte 10y ago
      >a complete perversion of basic capitalism I'm pretty sure that was the whole point. Capitalism is not a magical faery solution to everything, it obviously was not working in this industry so they are trying someone new.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        > Capitalism is not a magical faery solution to everything, I completely agree, but the solution to that is not granting guaranteed profits to an industry. They are already granted a monopoly market with copyright. Why should they also get to skip the entire legal system and having to actually produce a product people want and jump straight to profits? We're talking about luxury goods, not healthcare.
        SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        If the fund is distributed according to sales, how does any of that apply? They still have to compete for profits to get a share, their sales are just worth a little bit extra to offset the cultural benefit of more freely available music. (Eg, for each dollar they take in, they actually get $1.01.) In the sense you're using "luxury goods", they're still essential to human cultural and psychological well-being, even if not base survival.
        pedrocr 10y ago
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    That's... a surprisingly (and refreshingly) pragmatic way to deal with that percieved problem Unfortunately, it usually results in collecting money based on people buying recordable media, regardless of what material they're going to record on that media, and redirecting that money to large, high-profile content providers, also regardless of whose material was actually recorded. In short, smaller content providers and the citizens who are enjoying that content (or using the recordable media for other purposes entirely) are being systematically ripped off.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      But it basically gives you carte blanche to pirate as much as you want. I mean, you already paid for every album and movie that exists, you might as well take advantage of it.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Well, no, not legally, at least. You can only copy stuff you already own.
        freehunter 10y ago
        That's interesting. I'm not sure on Portuguese law, but at least in the US it's completely legal to copy stuff you already own. The RIAA and MPAA claim it's not, but it is as long as you don't break the DRM that was originally included on the disc. So unless the law in Portugal doesn't include this fair-use clause, you're paying a tax on media to pay companies for something that is already completely legal. Again, I don't know Portuguese law, so it may be completely different.
        Silhouette 10y ago
        The US fair use laws are probably the most liberal anywhere in the world when it comes to excluding some acts from copyright protection (at least within those places where copyright is a serious legal proposition in the first place). I don't know anywhere else that uses generic, test-based standards rather than identifying specific acts to be excluded. This has been a long-standing point of contention, because whether the US's fair use regime fully complies with its international obligations under the major treaties is questionable.
  - pdpi 10y ago
    > That's... a surprisingly (and refreshingly) pragmatic way to deal with that percieved problem, to be honest. Until you realise that it means the HDDs in your servers pay a piracy tax.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      No, such companies can get a declaration exempting them from the tax, which they can then show at the time of purchase.
      - zepto 10y ago
        What about your personal laptop if you only use it for programming?
        icebraining 10y ago
        Nope, just "collective persons" (no individuals).
  - freeflight 10y ago
    >That's... a surprisingly (and refreshingly) pragmatic way to deal with that percieved problem, to be honest. It's a solution to nothing and can easily turn into a bloated bureaucratic nightmare like in Germany. A private copying levy exists, regardless of that, there's a thriving business sector of lawyers sending out bulk cease&desist letters for the most absurd of copyright infringements. Along with that come a number of "collecting societies" like GEMA (music), VG Wort (literature) or VG Bild-Kunst (video/art) which are responsible for collecting all kinds of levies and paying them out to the respective "artists", IF artists actually claim their share of the money. In reality, these are bloated organizations where most of the collected money goes to the board of directors, of which most only sit in that position as some kind of political retirement plan/favor. GEMA is the reason why many popular music videos on YouTube have been straight up blocked in Germany, they are also quite infamous for issuing admonishings to kindergartens and schools for singing/copying copyrighted christmas/birthday song texts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization)
    - germanier 10y ago
      > most of the collected money goes to the board of directors Administrative costs of those societies are somewhere between 5% and 15%. The rest goes to the creators. > board of directors, of which most only sit in that position as some kind of political retirement plan/favor I just scanned a few biographies and it didn't look like anything out of the ordinary. They are elected by the members of those societies and not appointed by politicians.
      - freeflight 10y ago
        >Administrative costs of those societies are somewhere between 5% and 15%. The rest goes to the creators. That's the theory, in practice many members have to pay in more than they get out because they have to pay fees to GEMA even when playing their own works. >I just scanned a few biographies and it didn't look like anything out of the ordinary. For 17 years the CEO used to be Reinhold Kreile, a CSU politician, and lawyer for copyright. He wasn't the first and he ain't the last, it's part of the political culture in Germany.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  > That said, it's fairly mild: only says one can't use DRM to prevent users from enjoying their legal rights, and there's no penalty, except that the DRM breakers won't get fined by our (EU-mandated) anti-circumvention laws This is sufficient for creating a market for DRM breakers. It's basically the same situation we have at Brazil, you can just take your stuff to a store and have someone remove DRM from stuff you own.
- kakarot 10y ago
  Seems like a perfect candidate for flexing out the nasty investor-state arbitration policies that large companies have been trying to pass through recent international trade agreement proposals. It would be easy to argue that Portugal is forcing them to lose profit because they are not allowed to collect fines for "unauthorized" circumvention.
lithos 10y ago
I feel like legislatures will eventually learn to propose and 'bring close to the floor' all kinds of stuff that aggressive businesses wouldn't like, just so that they increase lobbying efforts.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  Lobbying is ilegal in Portugal (and I think all of the EU for that matter).
  - dagw 10y ago
    I think all of the EU for that matter Nope. Rules differ from country to country and even within EU-the-organisation each institution sets their own rules and guidelines as to how much lobbying they allow. That being said, nowhere in the EU is lobbying anywhere near the levels seen in the US.
potato_mOWX2EVX 10y ago
It's not a ban on DRM, just make provisions that DRM can't infringe on legal rights. In others, you can rip DVDs for private use (private copies of copyright materials) by overcoming DRM technology is now protected by the law.
userbinator 10y ago
The draft also outlaws the use of DRM on copyright works that have fallen into the public domain That reminds me of all the sites which sell PDFs of old equipment service manuals, many of which would've become public domain due to their age.
dogma1138 10y ago
In Spain you used to be able to buy modded consoles and mod chips were sold legally be even large retailers, iirc Portugal wasn't much different. This isn't about banning DRM it's about not restricting your legal rights under ownership. In both cases it can be "fixed" by changing the terms of sale to a lease.
- icebraining 10y ago
  I don't remember it being that accepted in Portugal, but chip modding services weren't hard to find. How would the "lease fix" work? I don't think the law restricts itself to purchased products.
  - hedora 10y ago
    I think the idea is that you pay a one time fee to lease your game console for life. If you mod it, then you have vandalized someone else's property. The US has something called the "first sale doctrine" that essentially outlaws such schemes by simply treating such leasing schemes as sales. The first sale doctrine has been constantly under attack (for a century, at least) by vendors that want to shut down markets for used goods, avoid allowing their own customers a license to use patented products as they see fit. Printer ink manufactures like lexmark are a good modern example.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Think of it as buying a movie ticket vs a DVD if they can legally (and this can be done) structure the terms of sale as a life time lease they can impose restrictions on it. Arguably this is easier in Europe since first sale doctrine isn't enforced by law in most countries iirc.

187 points by unhammer 10y ago

For context, the current government is composed of a center-left party supported by two "far-left" parties, which have the majority despite the center-right party having come out on top in number of votes. The bill comes from one of the far-left parties (Left Block). That said, it's fairly mild: only says one can't use DRM to prevent users from enjoying their legal rights, and there's no penalty, except that the DRM breakers won't get fined by our (EU-mandated) anti-circumvention laws, if I'm reading it correctly. And they haven't revoked the bill passed by the previous right-wing government, which forced ISPs to block access to a bunch of "piracy" related sites (TPB, Kickass, etc). Also, the private copying exception that they mention (and which already existed) doesn't come from free: we have an extra tax on storage devices that gets pooled into a fund to "compensate" authors for that exception.

fao_ 10y ago
> we have an extra tax on storage devices that gets pooled into a fund to "compensate" authors for that exception. That's... a surprisingly (and refreshingly) pragmatic way to deal with that percieved problem, to be honest. It'd be nice to see more countries going with solutions like that, rather than the old "Do as I say or I'll beat you over the head"
- icebraining 10y ago
  It's fairly common nowadays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
  - pedrocr 10y ago
    It's not that common and it wouldn't make it any less of a travesty. It's like taxing all furniture on the off chance you'll use it to store your vinyl records. And like with furniture an increasing majority of your media is used to store your own content (e.g., the video of your kid from your brand new 4K camera) so this isn't even directionally correct.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      It's a tax, not a payment. Sure, there's some attempt to target it at people who can actually enjoy that right (can't copy stuff if you have nowhere to copy it to), but it's not supposed to be an exchange for use.
      - pedrocr 10y ago
        We already have a tax for content authors, this is supposed to be much more targeted. Instead all it does is make local electronics retailers even less competitive when compared to the online players. This is also a travesty because you're supposedly being taxed for the privilege of enjoying something you are already paying for. In reality it's even worse because this is only relevant to extract money from those who are not buying your content. The ones who are buying your content already have a pricing relationship with you where more or less money can be exchanged for more or less service. At the end of the day this was just a way for entrenched interests to extract money from the population that wouldn't normally be given to them because they don't produce content that interests them.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  >> an extra tax on storage Who cares about due process and the market, just presume everybody is liable and tax them to guarantee profit to an industry? What a complete perversion of basic capitalism and rule of law. > It'd be nice to see more countries going with solutions like that It's nice to pay an extra tax to prop up a poorly-run industry? >>> There will also be an exception for private copying. While it's not clear precisely what is meant by "private copying", time-shifting was ruled a fair use in the Betamax case, without the need for a levy.
  - lightbyte 10y ago
    >a complete perversion of basic capitalism I'm pretty sure that was the whole point. Capitalism is not a magical faery solution to everything, it obviously was not working in this industry so they are trying someone new.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > Capitalism is not a magical faery solution to everything, I completely agree, but the solution to that is not granting guaranteed profits to an industry. They are already granted a monopoly market with copyright. Why should they also get to skip the entire legal system and having to actually produce a product people want and jump straight to profits? We're talking about luxury goods, not healthcare.
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        If the fund is distributed according to sales, how does any of that apply? They still have to compete for profits to get a share, their sales are just worth a little bit extra to offset the cultural benefit of more freely available music. (Eg, for each dollar they take in, they actually get $1.01.) In the sense you're using "luxury goods", they're still essential to human cultural and psychological well-being, even if not base survival.
        pedrocr 10y ago
- Silhouette 10y ago
  That's... a surprisingly (and refreshingly) pragmatic way to deal with that percieved problem Unfortunately, it usually results in collecting money based on people buying recordable media, regardless of what material they're going to record on that media, and redirecting that money to large, high-profile content providers, also regardless of whose material was actually recorded. In short, smaller content providers and the citizens who are enjoying that content (or using the recordable media for other purposes entirely) are being systematically ripped off.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    But it basically gives you carte blanche to pirate as much as you want. I mean, you already paid for every album and movie that exists, you might as well take advantage of it.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Well, no, not legally, at least. You can only copy stuff you already own.
      - freehunter 10y ago
        That's interesting. I'm not sure on Portuguese law, but at least in the US it's completely legal to copy stuff you already own. The RIAA and MPAA claim it's not, but it is as long as you don't break the DRM that was originally included on the disc. So unless the law in Portugal doesn't include this fair-use clause, you're paying a tax on media to pay companies for something that is already completely legal. Again, I don't know Portuguese law, so it may be completely different.
        Silhouette 10y ago
        The US fair use laws are probably the most liberal anywhere in the world when it comes to excluding some acts from copyright protection (at least within those places where copyright is a serious legal proposition in the first place). I don't know anywhere else that uses generic, test-based standards rather than identifying specific acts to be excluded. This has been a long-standing point of contention, because whether the US's fair use regime fully complies with its international obligations under the major treaties is questionable.
- pdpi 10y ago
  > That's... a surprisingly (and refreshingly) pragmatic way to deal with that percieved problem, to be honest. Until you realise that it means the HDDs in your servers pay a piracy tax.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    No, such companies can get a declaration exempting them from the tax, which they can then show at the time of purchase.
    - zepto 10y ago
      What about your personal laptop if you only use it for programming?
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Nope, just "collective persons" (no individuals).
- freeflight 10y ago
  >That's... a surprisingly (and refreshingly) pragmatic way to deal with that percieved problem, to be honest. It's a solution to nothing and can easily turn into a bloated bureaucratic nightmare like in Germany. A private copying levy exists, regardless of that, there's a thriving business sector of lawyers sending out bulk cease&desist letters for the most absurd of copyright infringements. Along with that come a number of "collecting societies" like GEMA (music), VG Wort (literature) or VG Bild-Kunst (video/art) which are responsible for collecting all kinds of levies and paying them out to the respective "artists", IF artists actually claim their share of the money. In reality, these are bloated organizations where most of the collected money goes to the board of directors, of which most only sit in that position as some kind of political retirement plan/favor. GEMA is the reason why many popular music videos on YouTube have been straight up blocked in Germany, they are also quite infamous for issuing admonishings to kindergartens and schools for singing/copying copyrighted christmas/birthday song texts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_(German_organization)
  - germanier 10y ago
    > most of the collected money goes to the board of directors Administrative costs of those societies are somewhere between 5% and 15%. The rest goes to the creators. > board of directors, of which most only sit in that position as some kind of political retirement plan/favor I just scanned a few biographies and it didn't look like anything out of the ordinary. They are elected by the members of those societies and not appointed by politicians.
    - freeflight 10y ago
      >Administrative costs of those societies are somewhere between 5% and 15%. The rest goes to the creators. That's the theory, in practice many members have to pay in more than they get out because they have to pay fees to GEMA even when playing their own works. >I just scanned a few biographies and it didn't look like anything out of the ordinary. For 17 years the CEO used to be Reinhold Kreile, a CSU politician, and lawyer for copyright. He wasn't the first and he ain't the last, it's part of the political culture in Germany.
marcosdumay 10y ago
> That said, it's fairly mild: only says one can't use DRM to prevent users from enjoying their legal rights, and there's no penalty, except that the DRM breakers won't get fined by our (EU-mandated) anti-circumvention laws This is sufficient for creating a market for DRM breakers. It's basically the same situation we have at Brazil, you can just take your stuff to a store and have someone remove DRM from stuff you own.
kakarot 10y ago
Seems like a perfect candidate for flexing out the nasty investor-state arbitration policies that large companies have been trying to pass through recent international trade agreement proposals. It would be easy to argue that Portugal is forcing them to lose profit because they are not allowed to collect fines for "unauthorized" circumvention.

lithos 10y ago

I feel like legislatures will eventually learn to propose and 'bring close to the floor' all kinds of stuff that aggressive businesses wouldn't like, just so that they increase lobbying efforts.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jbmorgado 10y ago
Lobbying is ilegal in Portugal (and I think all of the EU for that matter).
- dagw 10y ago
  I think all of the EU for that matter Nope. Rules differ from country to country and even within EU-the-organisation each institution sets their own rules and guidelines as to how much lobbying they allow. That being said, nowhere in the EU is lobbying anywhere near the levels seen in the US.

potato_mOWX2EVX 10y ago

It's not a ban on DRM, just make provisions that DRM can't infringe on legal rights. In others, you can rip DVDs for private use (private copies of copyright materials) by overcoming DRM technology is now protected by the law.

userbinator 10y ago

The draft also outlaws the use of DRM on copyright works that have fallen into the public domain That reminds me of all the sites which sell PDFs of old equipment service manuals, many of which would've become public domain due to their age.

dogma1138 10y ago

In Spain you used to be able to buy modded consoles and mod chips were sold legally be even large retailers, iirc Portugal wasn't much different. This isn't about banning DRM it's about not restricting your legal rights under ownership. In both cases it can be "fixed" by changing the terms of sale to a lease.

icebraining 10y ago
I don't remember it being that accepted in Portugal, but chip modding services weren't hard to find. How would the "lease fix" work? I don't think the law restricts itself to purchased products.
- hedora 10y ago
  I think the idea is that you pay a one time fee to lease your game console for life. If you mod it, then you have vandalized someone else's property. The US has something called the "first sale doctrine" that essentially outlaws such schemes by simply treating such leasing schemes as sales. The first sale doctrine has been constantly under attack (for a century, at least) by vendors that want to shut down markets for used goods, avoid allowing their own customers a license to use patented products as they see fit. Printer ink manufactures like lexmark are a good modern example.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Think of it as buying a movie ticket vs a DVD if they can legally (and this can be done) structure the terms of sale as a life time lease they can impose restrictions on it. Arguably this is easier in Europe since first sale doctrine isn't enforced by law in most countries iirc.