On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:27:03 +0100, a@avenarius.sk wrote:
Second, Marcello, no country is governed by EU Directives. You posted a link to an EU Directive from 2001 -- admittedly an authoritative reference -- that merely says it should be implemented in EU Member States later on. Whether it was indeed later implemented by all EU Memeber States, and in what shape and form in each particular instance, I have no idea. (Do you?)
It has been transposed to national law in virtually all member states AFAIK. Generally speaking, you can expect a directive from 2001 to have been implemented by now. You are right that none really can know all the laws of the country one lives in, so I can't tell you whether Slovakia has implemented this directive, but I would be rather surprised if it hasn't.
Third, you reference Article 6 of that Directive, but paragraph 4 of that Article explicitly mentions "exceptions and limitations" from copyright laws, referring back to Article 5(2)(b) which, in its turn, explicitly mentions "reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial".
I would say that is a gross misrepresentation of Section 4 of Article 6 and the case law on the subject agrees with me. What it says is that if DRM causes specific exceptions or limitations to copyright to function no longer, the member states have to supply a mechanism to have that exception or limitation to function again. The list of exceptions and limitations that this applies to does not include the right to make a private copy. It also says that the member states _may_ apply this to the right to make a private copy. Which none have done, as far as I know. The case law has been mostly tangentially related to this issue and mostly French, notably the Mulholland case: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2008/9/article12.en.html In this case the French court decided that there is no positive right to make a private copy, meaning that this copyright exception does not entitle one to making private copies. There is a Finnish case ongoing: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol6-3/valimaki.asp One should also bear in mind that section 4 also includes the text "without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures regarding the number of reproductions in accordance with these provisions." which means that outright removal of DRM for private copies is never allowed by this directive. I would say that if one gives a thorough reading to the proof Marcello provided, notwithstanding the abrasive manner in which he did, is a lot more than 'zero proof'.
answer. I'd even be happy to contact a lawyer in my own country if needed -- if only I knew *what* lawyer, and where, I should turn to. I really have no idea.
Lawyers tend to advertise their specialisms on their websites. Pick one that does copyright cases, preferably one that also publishes academic papers in that field. Or just ask around to which sections of Slovakian copyright law this directive has been transposed and you probably can read it for yourself. Oh, and when you get around to do so, please report the end-result on this list. It will probably be along the lines of 'Marcello was right'. Regards, Walter