2 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI'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 agoThat'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.