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
Rushed translation from that original article in portuguese:
DIAP considers reproduction for private use "legal", adding "even though there is the issue of a user acting simultaneously as uploader and downloader of the shared files."
This is a great example of media spinning towards the opposite side, look at the full quote from another source:
[...] even though there is the issue of a user acting simultaneously as uploader and downloader of the shared files, we understand as legitimate the use of P2P networks by their users for private use -- articles 75-2a and 81-b of the Code of Author's Rights and Associated Rights -- even though one can gather that once the copy is done the user does not stop being part of the sharing process.
So what sounded like a warning to change the law was actually them specifying that the download vs. upload issue is irrelevant for this particular case. A really strong point, and the rightsholder associations are fuming like mad (especially since they were the ones that caused this following a silly charge of 2000 IP addresses.) Considering the conservative tendency of the current government and the current political shitstorm here, it wouldn't be shocking to see a change to the law try to slip through Parliament. Also, if the EU someday decides for a copyright directive that outlaws private copying (lobbies are powerful, remember), it's bye bye for our downloader's paradise here.
It's not so terrible if you use a more recent version -- right now, 1.4.0rc1 is the one to go for.
And regarding the quality of the output, it's good enough to make a magazine with*. Granted, there's a hiccup here and there, but you'll also get that with InDesign -- only with prettier error messages.
* Disclosure: I'm one of the designers.
Don't be silly.
If you RTFA, and maybe if you read the artists' statements on this work, you'll find out it's obviously meant to pull things to an extreme in order to make a point. Which is the big problem of having so much personal information centralised and controlled by a private company, as well as the very foggy status of such information -- you're crying out for seeing it on a (fake, in case you missed it) dating site, but having that information relayed to ad companies almost never elicits strong reactions such as yours.
tl;dr: it's not a dating site, it's an art project, don't create straw men.
Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!