Vanonymous
Registered User
- Posts
- 276
- Posts Power
- 276.0%
- Liked
- 48
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2025
- Bonus Points
- 13,525
Early December, Denmark's Ministry of Culture submitted a bill that aims to combat viewing of pirated content on illegal IPTV platforms. Public debate was more concerned with proposed restrictions on VPNs, with some concluding that the government wants a "total ban". In a statement this week, Denmark's Minister of Culture said VPNs will not be banned, and to avoid doubt, references to VPNs will be removed. Whether that will change anything seems extremely unlikely.
The emergence of new technologies that appear to undermine provisions in existing law can present problems for those hoping to protect their content.
The Stated Need For Amendments
The draft proposals submitted by the Ministry of Culture in early December include measures to combat viewing of content on “illegal IPTV services” and the “illegal use of VPN connections.”
Legal standing under existing law doesn’t appear to be in doubt as both are clearly labeled “illegal”. Yet as things stand, both are considered “not suitable for cracking down on” since existing law is tailored towards older broadcasting technologies.
“[T]he rules are primarily aimed at illegal decoders and other decoding equipment. Pirate decoders and pirate cards are out of date, and it is therefore necessary to update the rules so that they can handle today’s piracy activities,” the proposals read.
The proposals go further than a simple update to tackle piracy as it stands today. The goal is to “future-proof” the law to ensure that it is able to deal with a “continuously and rapidly developing technical landscape.”
More specifically, the aim is to ensure that the “prohibition against online piracy becomes technology-neutral and can thereby take technological development into account. It is further clarified that the prohibition against online piracy in accordance with current law applies both for commercial purposes and for private use.”
Proposed Amendments
Among other things, provisions first introduced in 1997 targeted “pirate decoders and pirate decoder cards” which were used to circumvent signal encryption and avoid paying broadcasters for a subscription. Advertising and promoting these devices and similarly capable equipment was also banned.
In 2000, the existing commercial piracy ban was expanded to the private space; possession of a pirate decoder was rendered illegal, to send a “preventative message” to households that may have been considering purchasing one. In today’s environment, banning devices alone is insufficient, so the amendments envision the following:
This represents a core change. Rather than focusing on banning the sale and possession of physical devices, there’s a shift towards targeting the circumvention of access restrictions of all kinds, and providing the means to do so.
Focus Shifts From Devices to Circumvention
Most obviously this outlaws illegal access to content only available via legitimate services in exchange for a fee; in this case a fee the user hopes to avoid paying. In isolation that’s hardly a ground-breaking amendment, but the intended scope is substantially broader than that.
The same restrictions also apply when a user accesses content for which they have already paid the appropriate fee, but geo-restrictions dictate that the content is not ordinarily available in the user’s region.
In other words, accessing geo-blocked content will become illegal, regardless of whether the user paid for the content or not. As much is clearly signaled in the proposals, which also reveal that there are no limits on the type of content either.
Since the proposals also prohibit the acquisition, possession, installation, or use of equipment, software or other technical solutions, buying and using a VPN to access pirated content – or even geo-blocked content the user has paid for – would constitute an offense.
The same also applies to using any technical means to bypass Denmark’s existing site-blocking measures
Minister of Culture “Never Proposed” a VPN Ban
Public discussion over the proposals inevitably led some to conclude that what the government really wants is a “total VPN ban” in Denmark. While that claim is not supported by the current text, it’s sufficiently extreme to provide cover for denial on the details which, depending on the user, may have that type of effect nonetheless.
“The purpose of the bill was, among other things, to combat illegal streaming of football matches. Since then, debate has arisen about whether the government wants a total ban on VPN connections, which is not the case,” the Ministry of Culture wrote in a statement this week.
Minister of Culture Jakob Engel-Schmidt added the following:
“I am not in favor of making VPN illegal, and I have never proposed that. But I must admit that the bill has not been formulated precisely enough, when someone can see so many ghosts in the current wording. Therefore, I am removing the part about VPN in the bill, so that there can no longer be any doubt that I in no way want to ban the use of VPN.”
Removing ‘VPN’ From Future-Proofed Proposals Changes Nothing
Considering the intent underpinning the proposals, and the shortcomings in current legislation that the proposals aim to fix, removing the term ‘VPN’ seems unlikely to have any effect. After all, the enduring strength of the proposed amendments are due to their technology-neutral framing. Indeed, removing references to VPNs means nothing when the proposals state the following:
“The concept of ‘other technical solution’ should be understood broadly. The broad wording is intended to mean that the proposed amendment will cover any technical solution used to provide unauthorized access to media content.”
Posting on X, the Culture Minister described claims of a total VPN ban as “Fake news”.
“I do not advocate for criminalizing VPN and will certainly not propose that. In all honesty, this seems like a deliberate misunderstanding of a fairly modest bill, which solely establishes that it is illegal to stream sports without paying.”
In 2024, a legal battle in Denmark involving LaLiga and Rojadirecta, already concluded that live sports broadcasts are protected copyright works.
Under the proposals, advertising or promoting VPNs to unblock geo-protected content would also be an offense. Not necessarily VPNs either – anything capable of achieving the same result.
Denmark’s Supreme Court confirmed in 2020 that providing information on how to use Popcorn Time was a criminal offense.
The proposals are available here: Portal, bill, consultation letter, hearing list
In Denmark, the government believes that laws designed to protect against older technologies are now too specific to tackle today’s challenges. Draft proposals submitted earlier this month aim to modernize the law but have already sparked controversy.The Stated Need For Amendments
The draft proposals submitted by the Ministry of Culture in early December include measures to combat viewing of content on “illegal IPTV services” and the “illegal use of VPN connections.”
Legal standing under existing law doesn’t appear to be in doubt as both are clearly labeled “illegal”. Yet as things stand, both are considered “not suitable for cracking down on” since existing law is tailored towards older broadcasting technologies.
“[T]he rules are primarily aimed at illegal decoders and other decoding equipment. Pirate decoders and pirate cards are out of date, and it is therefore necessary to update the rules so that they can handle today’s piracy activities,” the proposals read.
The proposals go further than a simple update to tackle piracy as it stands today. The goal is to “future-proof” the law to ensure that it is able to deal with a “continuously and rapidly developing technical landscape.”
More specifically, the aim is to ensure that the “prohibition against online piracy becomes technology-neutral and can thereby take technological development into account. It is further clarified that the prohibition against online piracy in accordance with current law applies both for commercial purposes and for private use.”
Proposed Amendments
Among other things, provisions first introduced in 1997 targeted “pirate decoders and pirate decoder cards” which were used to circumvent signal encryption and avoid paying broadcasters for a subscription. Advertising and promoting these devices and similarly capable equipment was also banned.
In 2000, the existing commercial piracy ban was expanded to the private space; possession of a pirate decoder was rendered illegal, to send a “preventative message” to households that may have been considering purchasing one. In today’s environment, banning devices alone is insufficient, so the amendments envision the following:
This represents a core change. Rather than focusing on banning the sale and possession of physical devices, there’s a shift towards targeting the circumvention of access restrictions of all kinds, and providing the means to do so.
Focus Shifts From Devices to Circumvention
Most obviously this outlaws illegal access to content only available via legitimate services in exchange for a fee; in this case a fee the user hopes to avoid paying. In isolation that’s hardly a ground-breaking amendment, but the intended scope is substantially broader than that.
The same restrictions also apply when a user accesses content for which they have already paid the appropriate fee, but geo-restrictions dictate that the content is not ordinarily available in the user’s region.
In other words, accessing geo-blocked content will become illegal, regardless of whether the user paid for the content or not. As much is clearly signaled in the proposals, which also reveal that there are no limits on the type of content either.
And the potential legal violations for accessing pirated and/or geo-blocked content – paid for or not – don’t stop there.
Since the proposals also prohibit the acquisition, possession, installation, or use of equipment, software or other technical solutions, buying and using a VPN to access pirated content – or even geo-blocked content the user has paid for – would constitute an offense.
The same also applies to using any technical means to bypass Denmark’s existing site-blocking measures
Minister of Culture “Never Proposed” a VPN Ban
Public discussion over the proposals inevitably led some to conclude that what the government really wants is a “total VPN ban” in Denmark. While that claim is not supported by the current text, it’s sufficiently extreme to provide cover for denial on the details which, depending on the user, may have that type of effect nonetheless.
“The purpose of the bill was, among other things, to combat illegal streaming of football matches. Since then, debate has arisen about whether the government wants a total ban on VPN connections, which is not the case,” the Ministry of Culture wrote in a statement this week.
Minister of Culture Jakob Engel-Schmidt added the following:
“I am not in favor of making VPN illegal, and I have never proposed that. But I must admit that the bill has not been formulated precisely enough, when someone can see so many ghosts in the current wording. Therefore, I am removing the part about VPN in the bill, so that there can no longer be any doubt that I in no way want to ban the use of VPN.”
Removing ‘VPN’ From Future-Proofed Proposals Changes Nothing
Considering the intent underpinning the proposals, and the shortcomings in current legislation that the proposals aim to fix, removing the term ‘VPN’ seems unlikely to have any effect. After all, the enduring strength of the proposed amendments are due to their technology-neutral framing. Indeed, removing references to VPNs means nothing when the proposals state the following:
“The concept of ‘other technical solution’ should be understood broadly. The broad wording is intended to mean that the proposed amendment will cover any technical solution used to provide unauthorized access to media content.”
Posting on X, the Culture Minister described claims of a total VPN ban as “Fake news”.
“I do not advocate for criminalizing VPN and will certainly not propose that. In all honesty, this seems like a deliberate misunderstanding of a fairly modest bill, which solely establishes that it is illegal to stream sports without paying.”
In 2024, a legal battle in Denmark involving LaLiga and Rojadirecta, already concluded that live sports broadcasts are protected copyright works.
Under the proposals, advertising or promoting VPNs to unblock geo-protected content would also be an offense. Not necessarily VPNs either – anything capable of achieving the same result.
Denmark’s Supreme Court confirmed in 2020 that providing information on how to use Popcorn Time was a criminal offense.
The proposals are available here: Portal, bill, consultation letter, hearing list