4 ms·

The only way GitLab would escape DMCA would be to host in China or Russia (which also would get it banned by many of their customers). The US has many IP agreem

The only way GitLab would escape DMCA would be to host in China or Russia (which also would get it banned by many of their customers). The US has many IP agreements with European countries and even some Asian countries, good luck escaping from it.

Rochus 6y ago
No; it could e.g. be hosted in Switzerland; when assessing the case Swiss law applies; possible agreements with other countries are not directly applicable, but are reflected in the national law. EDIT: and in contrast to e.g. Germany or apparently the US there is nothing like a cease and desist letter in Switzerland, but claims such as the present one must be brought before the court.
realusername 6y ago
A lot of EU countries have explicit copyright exceptions for personal copies though due to the storage tax, so youtube-dl is legal in those countries anyways.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  It wouldn't be legal in any of those territories - those explicit copyright exemptions don't apply to content that you're not licensed to have permanently or broadcasts. European law also requires member states to have laws against breaching technical protection measures, and bypassing those isn't usually legal irrespective of personal copy exemptions. And in this case Youtube-dl was taken down because it was claimed to breach technical protection measures.
  - realusername 6y ago
    > It wouldn't be legal in any of those territories - those explicit copyright exemptions don't apply to content that you're not licensed to have permanently or broadcasts. On my case (French laws), there's no exception for that: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006466389/1992-07-02 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI00000... as long as it's a private copy. > European law also requires member states to have laws against breaching technical protection measures, and bypassing those isn't usually legal irrespective of personal copy exemptions. And in this case Youtube-dl was taken down because it was claimed to breach technical protection measures. That's actually the opposite, there's an interoperability exceptions for DRMs unlike in the US, which protecting a video certainly falls into since you would not be able to read it.
    - Mindwipe 6y ago
      I'm afraid that the French Supreme Court disagrees with you on both points (https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publication/frenchcopyright062006_pdf.ashx https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publi...) As it must, because the European directive has primacy.
      - realusername 6y ago
        That's a different problem, this is judging the legality of DRMs. Copyright holders unfortunately still have a right to add DRMs into their media but consumers also have a right to break them for their personal copy. I personally think DRMs should be plain illegal since you have a right to copy for your personal use, that would make more sense, but here we are, that's some middle ground.
  - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
    on the contrary: bypassing technical protection is only illegal in the eu if done for illegal purposes, not if done while staying within consumer rights.

Rochus 6y ago

No; it could e.g. be hosted in Switzerland; when assessing the case Swiss law applies; possible agreements with other countries are not directly applicable, but are reflected in the national law. EDIT: and in contrast to e.g. Germany or apparently the US there is nothing like a cease and desist letter in Switzerland, but claims such as the present one must be brought before the court.

realusername 6y ago

A lot of EU countries have explicit copyright exceptions for personal copies though due to the storage tax, so youtube-dl is legal in those countries anyways.

Mindwipe 6y ago
It wouldn't be legal in any of those territories - those explicit copyright exemptions don't apply to content that you're not licensed to have permanently or broadcasts. European law also requires member states to have laws against breaching technical protection measures, and bypassing those isn't usually legal irrespective of personal copy exemptions. And in this case Youtube-dl was taken down because it was claimed to breach technical protection measures.
- realusername 6y ago
  > It wouldn't be legal in any of those territories - those explicit copyright exemptions don't apply to content that you're not licensed to have permanently or broadcasts. On my case (French laws), there's no exception for that: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006466389/1992-07-02 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI00000... as long as it's a private copy. > European law also requires member states to have laws against breaching technical protection measures, and bypassing those isn't usually legal irrespective of personal copy exemptions. And in this case Youtube-dl was taken down because it was claimed to breach technical protection measures. That's actually the opposite, there's an interoperability exceptions for DRMs unlike in the US, which protecting a video certainly falls into since you would not be able to read it.
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    I'm afraid that the French Supreme Court disagrees with you on both points (https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publication/frenchcopyright062006_pdf.ashx https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publi...) As it must, because the European directive has primacy.
    - realusername 6y ago
      That's a different problem, this is judging the legality of DRMs. Copyright holders unfortunately still have a right to add DRMs into their media but consumers also have a right to break them for their personal copy. I personally think DRMs should be plain illegal since you have a right to copy for your personal use, that would make more sense, but here we are, that's some middle ground.
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
  on the contrary: bypassing technical protection is only illegal in the eu if done for illegal purposes, not if done while staying within consumer rights.