I have since learned that the Danish proposal was inspired by this Swedish expert report (Utretning SOU 2025:100) https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2025/09/sou-2025100/ about measures against IPTV, save for the bad drafting on the Danish side which brought VPNs into the game (maybe unintentional).

People in Sweden should be concerned about this attempt of #Copyright maximalism (see next post). The Swedish expert report is currently in consultation until 22 January 2026 https://www.regeringen.se/remisser/2025/10/remiss-av-betankandet-atgarder-mot-illegal-ip-tv-sou-2025100/

In summary, the law on 'pirate' TV decoders is extended to any unauthorised access to audiovisual content. This is already unlawful under EU #Copyright law, as interpreted by the CJEU in C-527/15, both for the IPTV provider (unauthorised 'communication to the public') and the user (unlawful temporary reproduction).

The main effect is to make it easier to prosecute individual users, since mere possession of e.g. an .m3u file or subscription to an illegal IPTV service could be enough for 'proof'.

There is zero evidence that punitive measures against random individual users (e.g. large fines for minor infringements, such as streaming a football match in your own home without authorisation) has any effect on nudging the public towards legal alternatives.

The focus of rightsholders should be on disrupting the illegal IPTV services and prosecuting the people behind these services. But they claim this is too difficult, and instead want to police to prosecute individual subscribers.