×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

File-Sharing For Personal Use Declared Legal In Portugal

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the as-long-as-it-involves-kale dept.

Piracy 179

New submitter M0j0_j0j0 writes "After receiving 2000 complaints regarding 'illegal file sharing' from ACAPOR regarding P2P networks, the Portuguese prosecutor refused to take the case into court on the premise that file sharing is not illegal in the territory if files are for personal and not commercial use. The court also stated that the complaints had, as sole evidence, the IP address of users, and that it is a wrong statement to assume an IP address is directly related to one individual. TorrentFreak has a piece in English with more details (original source in Portuguese)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

179 comments

A little bit of sanity... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41478883)

...among a lot of insanity...let's just see what German...err, the EU has to say about that.

Re:A little bit of sanity... (5, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479177)

Yep, even their drug policy is a bit more same than the rest of the world's, and it's paying off with less addiction.

More file sharing will bring increased sales.

Re:A little bit of sanity... (5, Insightful)

crazycheetah (1416001) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479447)

They proved it with the drug policy enough that the world AIDS organization (forgive me for forgetting the real name of that organization) decided to declare to the world that everyone needs to follow in suit, which they've only done prior to that in declaring AIDS is caused by HIV (because Russia was denying it). Of course, most countries have said fuck you to that.

The question is if they're going to be able to prove that it's actually effective with file sharing, though. And then if anyone is going to give a shit that they proved it (I have a feeling the US in particular, unless a revolution happens, is going to deny any proof Portugal gives here).

Re:A little bit of sanity... (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479979)

The question is if they're going to be able to prove that it's actually effective with file sharing, though

Multiple studies have already proven it. One study, in fact, was commissioned by a book publisher wanting to find out how much money he was losing to piracy. Since unlike MP3s and movies, books don't hit the net for two or three weeks, the researchers looked for the pirates and then at sales figures. Rather than the expected drop in sales, there was a sales spike, do doubt caused by the "buzz" the pirate version caused.

But don't expect that to sway anyone from the MAFIAA, though.

Re:A little bit of sanity... (2)

crazycheetah (1416001) | about a year and a half ago | (#41480403)

Fully agree with you. The hope (although far from expectation) would be that another country proving a policy works might have more weight than a few experiments that the government doesn't care about nearly as much apparently.

Re:A little bit of sanity... (3, Interesting)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479731)

It's easy to do because Portugal has little stake in copyright enforcement. Can anyone name a globally distributing film/music/software company from Portugal?

Re:A little bit of sanity... (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479819)

your point (or, *a* point) is taken: since the country, there, is not a big producer of entertainment goods (at least not for export) - they could only be representing their people and not any one local industry. ie, this is what society is/was always meant to be about! the government sticking up for the peoples' rights and interests. even if some corp interests lose out, the people are what matters.

USA: learn from this!

(sigh. who am I kidding!? we'll never change. never. dammit.)

Re:A little bit of sanity... (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#41480175)

I don't expect UK or France (other top IP reliant economies) to follow Portugal either. Even without cronyism the legitimate taxes that can be raised from these industries ensures that no country with a sizable stake will do the same.

Re:A little bit of sanity... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41480393)

It's easy to do because Portugal has little stake in copyright enforcement. Can anyone name a globally distributing film/music/software company from Portugal?

Why is that even relevant? What would change if there were such a company?

U.S. law still applies (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41478907)

Portuguese citizens need to be reminded that they're still under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and WILL be extradited to the U.S. for breaking any IP laws!

Re:U.S. law still applies (4, Informative)

ammorais (1585589) | about a year and a half ago | (#41478973)

Portugal actually have laws that even prevent an U.S. citizen from being extradited under certain circumstances.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-PT&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parlamento.pt%2FLegislacao%2FPaginas%2FConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx%23art33 [google.com]

Re:U.S. law still applies (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479171)

I'm not sure the CIA will give a shit - they'll come in anyway, kidnap the people, and drop them off at the torture camps.

Re:U.S. law still applies (3, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41480117)

Those laws all look like pretty standard extradition terms, actually. Many countries forbid extradition if it might carry the death penalty, for example, only do it for serious crimes, and only do it for crimes they recognize as crimes.

Which is not to say all countries always follow those laws (exceptions are made, for example, if they requesting country agrees not to pursue the death penalty in that case), but those are pretty standard extradition laws.

Re:U.S. law still applies (5, Informative)

hpacheco (2536480) | about a year and a half ago | (#41478985)

Portuguese citizens need to be reminded that they're still under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and WILL be extradited to the U.S. for breaking any IP laws!

there's no extradition agreement between the U.S. and Portugal

Re:U.S. law still applies (4, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479841)

Portuguese citizens need to be reminded that they're still under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and WILL be extradited to the U.S. for breaking any IP laws!

there's no extradition agreement between the U.S. and Portugal

Didn't stop then from going after Noriega in Panama and it's not stopping them from going after Assange in Sweden and Dotcom in New Zealand. Does the term 'extraordinary rendition' ring a bell?

Re:U.S. law still applies (3, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41480189)

First, they haven't gone after Assange in Sweden because he isn't in Sweden, and it would have made more sense to just do straight from the UK anyways since the US has a better treaty with them, and second, at least the latter two actually have extradition treaties with the US. Noriega was captured in a straight-up war (as a POW), and eventually extradited back to Panama (via France) to serve his sentence there. So, none of those were actually cases of "extraordinary rendition" at all.

Re:U.S. law still applies (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479049)

Portuguese citizens need to be reminded that they're still under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and WILL be extradited to the U.S. for breaking any IP laws!

Are you thinking of Puerto Rico by chance?

Portugal is not under any US jurisdiction whatsoever. Seriously, look at a map.

Re:U.S. law still applies (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479091)

Seriously, look at a map

I did, there's only two places on it: The US, and US Drone Territory.

Re:U.S. law still applies (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479271)

Seriously, look at a map

I did, there's only two places on it: The US, and US Drone Territory.

Guess that rules out that trip I had in mind to Toronto, eh?

Re:U.S. law still applies (1, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479853)

old and busted: calling non-US territory 'rest of world' or ROW.

new hotness: calling the ROW 'fair game for US drones'.

uhm, can we go back to the first one, again? maybe its not so bad.

Re:U.S. law still applies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479207)

Sweden isn't under US jurisdiction, either. It's all about how much somebody wants to sue your ass, interrogate you, torture you, or just flat out kill you. Piss off the right people and you somehow end up in the US, no matter where you live. Those skanks you screwed last weekend? Suddenly you're being investigated for rape charges.

Re:U.S. law still applies (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479223)

Please do not be alarmed by that whooshing noise above your head.

Re:U.S. law still applies (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479325)

Please do not be alarmed by that whooshing noise above your head.

Cut him some slack ... it's very difficult to tell the difference between a stupid American who has no idea where other countries are, and an asshole American who thinks their laws apply everywhere else.

Re:U.S. law still applies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479691)

Please do not be alarmed by that whooshing noise above your head.

Cut him some slack ... it's very difficult to tell the difference between a stupid American who has no idea where other countries are, and an asshole American who thinks their laws apply everywhere else.

It's not that it's difficult, it's just that other countries don't really matter much so it's not worth the trouble.

Re:U.S. law still applies (4, Insightful)

alendit (1454311) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479189)

Portuguese citizens need to be reminded that they're still under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and WILL be extradited to the U.S. for breaking any IP laws!

This post contains dangerous levels of sarcasm and thus required by Poe's Law to have at least a single emoticon (smiley). The poster may be considered himself warned.

Re:U.S. law still applies (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479191)

::whoosh::

crazyjj, I see you sitting back in your chair, smirking as you sip your Port.

craptastic!

Re:U.S. law still applies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479345)

Come on people.... sarcasm detectors broken today?
Just because another sovereign nations citizen broke US law doesn't mean they're protected from the wrath of special forces raids at the behest of the RIAA and MPAA. Kim Dotcom got an apology from his nations president and the US(mpaa) is still after him!

Re:U.S. law still applies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479803)

Do your homework before posting non-sense. Portugal will never extradite any portuguese citizen to countrys that have death penalty (barbarians) such as the US. Sorry about that

WHAT THE FU^$ (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41478909)

Someone better stop this sh*t before it spreads!... Common sense that is!

Where's the RIAA/MPAA/1% at with damage control?

Oh thats right, they are buttering up the EU and other large groups instead of small member or non-member nations...

If they suddenly went POOF, I wouldn't have a care in the world

In English (1, Troll)

darkfeline (1890882) | about a year and a half ago | (#41478935)

I'm no legal expert, but doesn't that mean piracy is legal as long as you aren't charging for it? Awesome stuff.

Re:In English (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41478999)

Why you call it piracy at first if there is no damage involved when it is for personal use?

Re:In English (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479235)

If we accept the assumption that copying material in infringement of someone else's exclusive right to do so (piracy for short) does some sort of damage, then why does "personal use" make any difference?
And why would "charging for it" make any difference? Whether you download for free or pay to download, the copyright holder is treated the same either way.
I'm not arguing for or against any presumptions here, but at least shouldn't the rules be consistent?

Re:In English (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479057)

No. It means (proabably... IANAL, and IANAPortugueseL) that as long as you aren't engaging in any commerce (including building reputation), and you're using it personally (meaning not distributing to the public at large), it's legal. In other words, downloading a song to listen to yourself is probably fine, but putting music on your Portuguese-hosted website probably isn't.

Re:In English (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479193)

What it means is that the judge doesn't think it's a good idea to criminalize young kids and teenagers that just downloaded some songs to play at home.

Re:In English (2)

miknix (1047580) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479751)

and you're using it personally (meaning not distributing to the public at large), it's legal. In other words, downloading a song to listen to yourself is probably fine, but putting music on your Portuguese-hosted website probably isn't.

Exactly. Playing music at your private parties is also illegal, unless you own the music or you have been licensed to do so.

Re:In English (1)

V-similitude (2186590) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479061)

Sort of, but "not charging for it" is not exactly the same thing as "for personal use". I suspect they'd say running a large scale website would qualify as commercial, regardless of whether you charged users explicitly.

Re:In English (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479151)

No - it means that, in Portugal, sharing files on a peer-to-peer network is not piracy, assuming the files aren't being used commercial purposes.

A real win in my book.

Re:In English (5, Insightful)

arielCo (995647) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479181)

No, I'm pretty sure that assaulting ships at sea and robbery in general is still punishable, even if you don't charge for your services.

Re:In English (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479213)

No. Piracy refers to the commercial distribution of copyrighted works without the authorization of the copyright's owners. Just because some american industry associations spend tons of money convincing you otherwise, copying stuff for personal use is not piracy. Nor is it stealing.

Common sense and reason (2)

MindPrison (864299) | about a year and a half ago | (#41478939)

Nice.

Portugal is also a very pretty country with lots of nature, and did I mention CHEAP housing with LOTS of land for pocket change? Plus low taxes, and even lower for the seniors.

Perfect retirement country, I may be heading there one day...who knows.

Re:Common sense and reason (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479083)

Also, possession of personal quantities of just about every drug [wikipedia.org] has been decriminalized in Portugal, for about 10 years now. The result has been a decrease in drug use and all associated problems.

Re:Common sense and reason (5, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479217)

And drug abuse has not gone up as a result. Just think of the money the country saves on not prosecuting these cases. A small island of sanity.

Re:Common sense and reason (4, Funny)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479377)

And drug abuse has not gone up as a result. Just think of the money the country saves on not prosecuting these cases. A small island of sanity.

Well, we can't have that. Cue 'discovery' of Al-Quaeda terrorist cells/terrorist training camps/oil/nuclear weapons programs/Julian Assange in Portugal in 5... 4... 3...

Drive it home (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479389)

The result has been a decrease in drug use and all associated problems

I don't think you really drove the point home. What this literally means is that decriminalization of drugs results in:

- LESS crime
- LESS violence
- LESS injustice
- LESS corruption in government

In other words, decriminalization has the exact opposite result of what the government propaganda teaches us. That should immediately raise a red flag and cause a citizen to lose trust in government. The fact that drug use itself also goes down, rather than up, is just the icing on the cake. The reason drugs need to be decriminalized is not simply to lower drug use; it is for the much more critical reasons stated above.

Re:Drive it home (3, Interesting)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479711)

Hold on, one second.

First, I'm assuming that "LESS crime" means less crime once you account for the fact that you're not prosecuting drug crimes. It would take a willfully ignorant misreading to screw that up.

However, how do you measure "LESS injustice" and "LESS corruption" as a result of decriminalizing drug laws? Not that I don't believe you, just that I think those would be hard to measure as effects.

Re:Drive it home (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479925)

Oh, come on... Even without that whole "causation" thing, or that "significance" bullshit, just calculating statistics is hard enough.

Especially while high.

Re:Drive it home (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41480105)

Less corruption: Prohibition is profit to government. That is why it exists, and that is why they are so vehemently against abolishing prohibition, even decriminalization which is merely a step in the right direction. Prohibition rakes billions of dollars per year through the business of government, and they are aware of this not simply at the top of the pyramid, but right down to the grunts who do the actual work. It is well known that prohibition presents the perfect opportunity for corruption, from the top of the pyramid right down to the grunts, and if you look hard enough through the smokescreen you will find plenty of evidence of actual corruption.

Less injustice: I consider this self-evident, but for those who accept the dominant theme of authoritarianism in today's world of superpower governments, it is 100% wrong and immoral to lock a peaceful man in a cage like an animal -- for committing a crime not against any actual human being, but merely against the business of government. Furthermore you can't ignore the incidental victims of prohibition: those who are falsely accused, emprisoned, or even killed (again, no shortage of evidence if you look hard enough).

Less crime: Again, I consider this obvious. Drug prohibition doesn't stop the drug business at all -- it simply puts it in the hands of criminals. Criminals who don't follow the law by definition.

Exactly (4, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479767)

Also, possession of personal quantities of just about every drug has been decriminalized in Portugal, for about 10 years now. The result has been a decrease in drug use and all associated problems.

This is a closely-guarded secret held under wraps by the US government, corporate-owned media, Big Pharma, and most especially the sickening for-profit prison corporations. You as a US citizen will NEVER hear about this on the news. Bill Maher should open every show talking about Portugal and compare it US prison statistics.

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479089)

Don't forget many others greats:

  1. Weather;
  2. Food;
  3. Wines;
  4. History;
  5. Beaches;
  6. Safety.

Just don't come here to work. Business and State are completely disorganised and pay is absolute shit, unless you are an executive. In that case, please come. We desperately need competent management. Not sure if the useless bloodsuckers we have now will yield their comfortable positions easily, though...

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479511)

To bad this is not the Dresden Files Universe

about 2 books back in The Dresden Files the Bloodsuckers got made extinct.

(oh you are talking about Managers Not Vampires never mind)

btw Cold Days comes out on November 27 (read the previous 13 books first!)

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479869)

Only the Red Court went down; the Black Court is still around, not many of them though; and White Court is still alive and kicking and appears to be on the rise.

Re:Common sense and reason (0)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41480187)

yah but The Red Court (the bloodsuckers) had turf in the Southern Americas, The Black Court is very minor (mavera is the only BC vamp to pop up really) and the White Court has Thomas as a member.

No info on the other 4 courts of course (except that there is a WOJ they are very Minor).

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

cp.tar (871488) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479617)

If it weren’t for your unemployment rates, which almost rival the ones here in Croatia, I’d be considering emigrating to Portugal. This way, I’m primarily considering Australia.

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479709)

Why would you want to come to Portugal? You already have what we have, great beaches and a shit economy.

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479839)

*MOST* places with great beaches have a shit economy. I don't understand it exactly but suspect the two may be related..

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year and a half ago | (#41480053)

Lackadaisical attitude since you're near the beach why not enjoy it and drug use commensurate with the lackadaisical lifestyle. There's a reason Jamaica isn't a powerhouse in anything except murders, drug use and beaches.

And yes, I heard the whoosh.

Re:Common sense and reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479145)

Just make sure you confirm your facts before moving here. Housing is not cheap (other than places you would not want to be), taxes are not low (and getting higher).
But it is a beautiful country, with great weather and wonderful, cheap wine. :-)

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

rjlouro (651989) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479153)

Low taxes? You obviously don't live in Portugal.

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479641)

He lives in Denmark. I'm pretty sure taxes are a lot lower here in Portugal. The same happens with salaries, though :-(

Re:Common sense and reason (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479577)

Yes, it's wonderful IF you already have a significant bucket of money. It's not so wonderful if you move there and then have to earn a living.

Hey.. (4, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479029)

Anyone got a lead on good Portuguese proxy servers I can torrent through?
Want to help me set some up?

Re:Hey.. (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479485)

So, IANAL, but isn't this saying that the court ruled it is not a criminal offense to share files for personal use? I.e. These were not lawsuits that were thrown out, but rather a trade organization trying to get the Attorney General to prosecute 2000 file sharers for illegal activity?

If so, then this doesn't exactly seem like a landmark or very important decision, since isn't the same pretty much true everywhere else [wikipedia.org]? Even in the U.S., it's not a criminal offense unless you're profiting from it (or engaging in it at a massive scale?), I thought, which is why all of the file sharers are being pursued in the civil courts via lawsuits and the like. It would seem to me that this trade organization could still pursue the 2000 file sharers via civil suits, and, if so, that the burden of proof may be substantially lower as well, since civil cases tend to rely on a preponderance of evidence [wikipedia.org], rather than beyond a reasonable doubt [wikipedia.org].

So, even though I know you were probably kidding around, I'll still be a wet blanket and point out that I don't see how this really changes anything for anyone.

Re:Hey.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479899)

But the proxy would be for explicitly not personal use. If its primary function was proxying non-Portuguese file sharers, it would then be illegal.

Bailout (2, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479045)

And this is how it will remain until the bribe I mean the interest free financial bailout monies are forwarded. At which point the subject will be revisited.

Why Portugal May Be the Next Greece [time.com]

Re:Bailout (1)

ammorais (1585589) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479353)

[sarcasm] Perhaps if we send file sharing teenagers, or their moms to jail, we bail the crisis then. [/sarcasm]

Re:Bailout (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479395)

What bribe are you talking about?

The billions of euros that we, the Portuguese taxpayers, dumped into saving banks? Banks that got themselves in dire straits because of serious criminal activities that lasted for years, right under the nose of the supervision authorities?

Because that money was interest free.

Portugal.... (4, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479055)

Enabling pirates since ~1577. Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fernandez [wikipedia.org]

Re:Portugal.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479175)

Enabling pirates since ~1577. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fernandez [wikipedia.org]

Awesome :D

Although you should read your own quotes:
"Fernandez severed his loyalty to the Spanish crown and in the 1570s he took up a career in piracy"

Portugal had virtually no pirates, but their fleets were attacked by British pirates, Spanish pirates and Dutch pirates...

people matters most (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479081)

there's no point judging the ones who use such material. find the source of the problem not the result!

LOL @ ACAPOR (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479111)

âoeWe are doing anything we can to alert the government to the very serious situation in the entertainment industryâ

I can't quite put my finger on it exactly, but for some reason that sentence made me LOL bigtime. Luckily no coffee was in my mouth at that moment, or I'd have ejected it explosively through several facial orifices.

Re:LOL @ ACAPOR (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479141)

Why did quotes become "Ãoe"? Slashbug?

Re:LOL @ ACAPOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479163)

Unicode, Slash can't handle it yet.

You had the fancy left/right quotes instead of the basic ascii ones.

Apparently the code monkeys at Slashdot haven't figure this out yet.

Re:LOL @ ACAPOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479369)

Strangely enough, "âoeWe" is how the previous king of Belgium used to pronounce "We".

You just wait for craziness to ensue... (3, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479285)

You just wait until various acronymous industry groups start blaming Portugal's "lax" IP laws on their financial problems. With entertainment revenue's bottom dropping out, as it does to an extent when people have little or no disposable income, we're bound to hear industry groups blaming it all on legalized file sharing. Sigh.

Re:You just wait for craziness to ensue... (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41479897)

I'm pretty sure the IMF will say something about that. And our puppet government will immediately create a law that forces every Portuguese to buy a certain monthly quantity of overpriced CDs containing shitty French and German music.

They must be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479383)

... terrorists!

How long before TCP/IP is illegal noncommercially? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479451)

Since we're fucking up protocols like this... Ridiculous!

Welcome to the axis of evil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479455)

...there is a free seat, right next to switzerland...

Great while it lasts, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479603)

...all this really means is that the right person(s) in Portuguese government haven't yet been bought. Rest assured they will be, and "order" will be restored.

It was the NOT court... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41479999)

...but the Public Prosecutor's Office (where ACAPOR had originally filled a complaint) that refused to pursue the case, due to the reasons outlined in the linked articles.

Re:It was NOT the court... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41480019)

(switch "the" and "NOT" on the subject line. sorry about that)

Downloading = Legal, "making available" not so (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41480047)

Portuguese with some legal background:

It has always been legal to own or acquire (download) unauthorized copies of most content. *
It's legal to make how many copies you want for your own use and to share with other people
within your "personal" sphere.

What is illegal is "making such content available to the public", emphasis on "public" as in
"general public".

What the A.G. clarified is that, in the particular case of BT and similar P2P protocols,
the act of seeding a file you are downloading, or did just download, enjoys the same treatment
as if you were downloading using a traditional protocol, i.e., benefits from the "personal use"
exception.

This does not mean you can happily run a public W4R3Z FTP server with impunity, but it does clarify
an important issue re: the law vs P2P downloads that had had no previous legal interpretation.

It has also brought about an interesting IP != person argument which will be interesting to follow up on,
in case of more serious offenses.

AC

* thanks to the lobbying efforts of the BSA-equivalent in the 90s, computer programs are dealt with differently
and enjoy no "personal use" rights.

Portuguese here... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41480067)

Actually, there isn't any news here, only confusion, and file-sharing in Portugal is still illegal. This means you cannot share something that is copyrighted and of which you have no right to copy. But receiving the result of the copy is not illegal. This basically means that it's illegal to upload, but downloading is legal. Using BitTorrent for downloading copyrighted material of which you have no right to copy is also illegal because you're uploading when you're downloading.

Re:Portuguese here... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41480433)

Also Portuguese here, Read the article with care
O DIAP considera "lícita" a reprodução para uso privado, "ainda que colocando-se neste tipo de redes a questão de o utilizador agir simultaneamente no ambiente digital em sede de upload e download dos ficheiros a partilhar". in publico.pt

File sharing iIsland of sanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41480457)

Portugal will benefit now from increased immigration of file sharers, maybe their economy will be saved as a result...

Piracy vs. FileSharing (3)

scarboni888 (1122993) | about a year and a half ago | (#41480621)

Piracy = making money off of other people's works = bad

File sharing != Piracy

Thank goodness the portugese legal system understands that as most of the rest of the world (Including Slashdot) seems to think those things are one and the same.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...