Legal Question

[rotty]

I don't know if this is the right section to place this question but as it arises from Decrypting I thought it might be.

I, like a lot of people back up my Disks to large Hard drive units.

All my Blu Ray disks are on the Drive and I keep the original Blu Ray Disks.

Also, I back up my DVD's to the Hard Drive and if I get the Blu Ray that replaces that same movie I delete the DVD Iso and replace it with the Blu Ray and I dispense with the original DVD.

However, I have a lot od DVD's that I would like to get rid of, they are on my Hard drive and the original physical disks are taking up space.

Now my question is: Do I HAVE to keep the original disk for each Iso I have on my Hard Drive for legal reasons, i.e. proof of purchase.

And no I dont have the receipts anymore.

[setarip_old]

Hi!

That certainly does sound like a legal question - and I believe the answer(s) would vary, depending upon what country you reside in.

In light of the fact that the Doom9 forum is not a forum specializing in legal findings, I'd suggest that you might try to locate a forum that does specialize in such legal matters and seek your answer there...

BTW approximately how many such old DVDs are you talking about? (I have a lot od DVD's that I would like to get rid of

[rotty]

Hi setarip

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I have about 800 DVD Disks and about 600 Blu Ray Disks.
It sounds a lot but with box sets included as well it soon mounts up.

The Blu Rays aren't an issue as I will keep them anyway.

I was thinking, perhaps its best if I keep the DVD Disks, by that I mean just the Disks and NOT the covers.
That would be proof of purchase wouldn't it.

[Ghitulescu]

IIRC the answer is no.
A bigger NO is when you intend to sell those DVDs that you intend to "dispose of" but to keep their ISOs on the NAS/HDD.

On the other hand nobody (yet :) ) will search for you :)

PS: I don't think any of us keep the receipts. I kept once a few for the stupid reason of finding how much my purchases are a year (compared eg to a subscription to whatever pay service).

PS2: I heard that it is planned to make statistic controls on portables eg at airports for the music one carries with. But this seems yet not to be the case (although an EU directive exists), yet this is gradually implemented (boiling the frog) - try to remember how simple was not even 20 years ago to board a plane :)

[rotty]

Yes I am going to keep all the disks on spindles and discard the covers.

The Studios are paranoid, all my ISO's are from my disks and if I have all the originals there can be no problem.

If Ford make a Car and sell it, and they want to sell another one they have to build another one, on so on and so on.

The Studios only have to make the Movie once and then they can copy if for pennies each time and make an absolute fortune.

They are very happy to take advantage of this, a Licence to print money, "literally".
But they hate it when anybody uses that same tech against them.

I am totally against Piracy but cake and eat it does come to mind.

[Video Dude]

Another issue I see, is what if the hard drive corrupts or stops working. I would keep the original discs for a backup.

[rotty]

Another issue I see, is what if the hard drive corrupts or stops working. I would keep the original discs for a backup.

Yes, the Drive is mirrored anyway. It was just the Legal issue.

We are allowed in the UK to copy for our own use.
BUT I think you could be on a sticky wicket if you didn't still have your originals.

[foxyshadis]

In the US and EU, any unsanctioned digital copy is illegal, a breach of the DMCA or ED2001/29/EC's implementations and leaves you liable for civil damages. Having "proof of purchase" changes nothing, because it's not the second copy that's illegal, it's the circumvention of the CSS/AACS that's illegal. Only backups of those rare unprotected discs would be legal. (Of course, selling off archived DVDs would be piracy.) Various court cases are working through the system attempting to repeal the personal backup restriction laws.

It's not only illegal in Japan, it was upgraded to include criminal penalties and it's being regularly enforced.

Practically speaking, jackbooted thugs won't break into your home unannounced and catalog your digital library, let alone audit it against your purchase history. You'll only catch heat if you distribute media without authorization, or in some other way stick your neck out and tip off the enforcers; even then you'll only be served with a lawsuit instead of arrested.

I'm a packrat, so I would put them somewhere, but feel free to throw them out if you wish. It doesn't change your legal situation one bit.

You're wrong about the UK anti-circumvention law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA), btw; that particular myth has gone around a lot. The only exception, in 296ZE & 296ZEA, is that one may petition the Secretary of State to be allowed to circumvent the protection when no method of legally accessing it remains -- such as an activation server having shut down, or every DVD player in the world having been destroyed.

[rotty]

In the US and EU, any unsanctioned digital copy is illegal, a breach of the DMCA or ED2001/29/EC's implementations and leaves you liable for civil damages. Having "proof of purchase" changes nothing, because it's not the second copy that's illegal, it's the circumvention of the CSS/AACS that's illegal. Only backups of those rare unprotected discs would be legal. (Of course, selling off archived DVDs would be piracy.) Various court cases are working through the system attempting to repeal the personal backup restriction laws.

It's not only illegal in Japan, it was upgraded to include criminal penalties and it's being regularly enforced.

Practically speaking, jackbooted thugs won't break into your home unannounced and catalog your digital library, let alone audit it against your purchase history. You'll only catch heat if you distribute media without authorization, or in some other way stick your neck out and tip off the enforcers; even then you'll only be served with a lawsuit instead of arrested.

I'm a packrat, so I would put them somewhere, but feel free to throw them out if you wish. It doesn't change your legal situation one bit.

You're wrong about the UK anti-circumvention law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA), btw; that particular myth has gone around a lot. The only exception, in 296ZE & 296ZEA, is that one may petition the Secretary of State to be allowed to circumvent the protection when no method of legally accessing it remains -- such as an activation server having shut down, or every DVD player in the world having been destroyed.

Then there is NO point to this Forum, everything that everybody does here is illegal.

We are in the Decrypting thread, TOTALLY ILLEGAL

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/it-s-now-legal-to-rip-cds-and-dvds-for-personal-use-1267485

[LoRd_MuldeR]

In the US and EU, any unsanctioned digital copy is illegal, a breach of the DMCA or ED2001/29/EC's implementations and leaves you liable for civil damages. Having "proof of purchase" changes nothing, because it's not the second copy that's illegal, it's the circumvention of the CSS/AACS that's illegal. Only backups of those rare unprotected discs would be legal. (Of course, selling off archived DVDs would be piracy.) Various court cases are working through the system attempting to repeal the personal backup restriction laws.

Well, at least in Germany you definitely have the right to create a "private copy", i.e. a copy that you don't use for commercial purposes or show publicly. There's even an extra tax that you pay on blank media, such as CD-R, for this reason. So if you bought a CD, you can of course make a copy for your car radio or for your MP3 player. There's a famous court decision that said up to seven copies can be considered "private use", while more than that is probably commercial redistribution.

Anyway, there are two important restrictions: First of all, you can only create a "private copy" from material that you obtained 100% legally. Making a copy of illegally obtain material doesn't make it any more legal. Secondly, you are not allowed to circumvent an "effective copy-protection" to create the copy. Though, whether CSS can still be considered "effective" nowadays and what exactly is considered as "circumvention" is highly controversial. That is the crux!


BTW: Because of the "in dubio pro reo" rule (that means "when in doubt, for the accused"), it's not you who has to prove that you created the "private copy" from a legal source, but the accuser would have to prove you created it from an illegal source. Still, by keeping the original media, you are on the safe side and avoid trouble. So rather than throwing your original discs into the trash, I would rather put them into a "cake box". Can store up to 100 discs in the smallest spaces ;)

[Ghitulescu]

I don't want to set the things on fire, but those laws people said about UK and Germany are not updated. Surely they may work a bit, depending on the attorneys, but these have been for long superseded by the new EU directives. IP legislation changes very quickly.

Then there is the apparent contradiction between "allow" and "don't allow", and the exceptions. A "don't allow" supersedes any "allow", unless it's an exception. Because the Roman law allows everything that isn't forbidden, therefore an "allow" is a mere state of the current status, while a "don't allow" is an enforcing restriction.

[rotty]

I don't want to set the things on fire, but those laws people said about UK and Germany are not updated. Surely they may work a bit, depending on the attorneys, but these have been for long superseded by the new EU directives. IP legislation changes very quickly.

Then there is the apparent contradiction between "allow" and "don't allow", and the exceptions. A "don't allow" supersedes any "allow", unless it's an exception. Because the Roman law allows everything that isn't forbidden, therefore an "allow" is a mere state of the current status, while a "don't allow" is an enforcing restriction.

Then I repeat what I said before:

Then there is NO point to this Forum, everything that everybody does here is illegal.

We are in the Decrypting thread, TOTALLY ILLEGAL

Here is the site that the information/misinformation came from:
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/it-s-now-legal-to-rip-cds-and-dvds-for-personal-use-1267485

It is dated 1st October 2014


.

[Ghitulescu]

Then there is NO point to this Forum, everything that everybody does here is illegal.

We are in the Decrypting thread, TOTALLY ILLEGAL

Not really .... the Secretary of State would be happily to assist you (if British citizen) in any trouble one may have trying to make a private copy :) :) :) :) and the Queen surely has the power to bend the laws, just give a biscuit to her Welsh Corgis (it's a diplomatic gift not a bribe).
This section applies where an individual is prevented from making a personal copy of a copyright work, or is restricted in the number of personal copies of it which may be made, because of a restrictive measure applied by or on behalf of the copyright owner.

(2) That individual, or a person being a representative of a class of such individuals, may issue a notice of complaint to the Secretary of State.

(3) Following receipt of a notice of complaint, the Secretary of State may give to the owner of that copyright work or an exclusive licensee such directions as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite or expedient for the purpose of—

[rotty]

I think the simple question is:

Is it Legal to make a copy (circumventing the copy protection, for personal use) of a Comercial DVD or Blu Ray Disk. YES or NO

OR Perhaps more accurately, is it EVER Legal (i.e. circumventing the copy protection, within a required criteria) to make a copy (for personal use) of a Comercial DVD or Blu Ray Disk.
YES or NO

[Ghitulescu]

The answer is maybe.

There are two aspects here. And you noticed them.

The first is the right to do a thing. The second is the possibility to do that thing.

Imagine the right to go to school but if you are born in the mountains you'd probably have no school around.

So, people copied things since day 0. To level the things, the state allowed certain associations (not categories) the right to tax some money from blank recordable media as well as from recorders, according to their business (like RIAA won't get any money from photocopiers).
This was somehow accepted, as any analogue copy was lossy and in the end multiple generations will be awful. They (RIAA/MPAA/GEMA etc) also cultivated the idea of premium (which excluded "lower" quality media, thus implicitly the copies) and launched the whole stupid idea of "philes" like audiophiles, people that go to see The Hobbit just because it's in 4k.
Digital changed the things dramatically in that the copy was indistinguishable from the original. So they invented the "digital lock", initially named SCMS (there were different ideas, but only SCMS survived).
So we have arrived in the place where legally we had the right to have a personal copy (or copies) with a grey zone of what personal means (do the guests had to leave the room when the host watched a movie???), but no possibility. And the "analogue loophole" remained the sole solution. The analogue loophole is still the only legal solution to copy protected movies/music in many countries, including USA.
When I told people here first about the analogue sunset nobody believed. Now I rarely see analogue outputs on BD-players, only the HDMI, the Network and maybe a S/P-DIF outputs. The analogue loophole will become a history artefact.
Soon after SCMS, and after smart people found solutions to circumvent it (via processors and custom electronics), the amis brought DMCA that forbade anything that could even touch a "protected" work. In its extended sense, even the compilation of a program say from clair text to binary (C++ compiler) may fall under these provisions. This was soon adopted all over where the amis could enforce, cheat or threaten.
Since then, no manufacturer provides any longer SCMS descramblers, the CloneCD and similar moved first to fiscal paradises then disappeared almost completely and so on. The computers started to resample everything inside (if allowed). And so on.

And we are now in a place where some older, still valid, laws allow you to copy for the purpose of protecting one's investment (eg not to play the CDs in the car but a copy; not to let the kids to ruin the DVD, etc.), but another law forbids the same one to circumvent "technical means" (which in extenso might mean even the text Input 1 to play the disc as the degree of technicality is not defined).

And coming to UK, this seems to be the case for the Secretary of State, to whom the affected citizen has to address a request and hope to be positively resolved. I don't know what happens next - does the citizen receive a diploma to hang on his wall The British subject name familyname is generously granted the permission to copy once the CD Albumname of Bandname ISRC 12345678 EAN 051234567890 issued on 2014 by Studioname, for which he duly paid a fee of 250£ :)

[rotty]

Well perhaps at the end of the day it comes down to common sense.

If you are technically breaking the Letter of the Law but are totally NOT breaking the Spirit then one would hope common sense would prevail.

BTW all digital Cinema films are at least 4K, I think you meant 48FPS re Hobbit.

[foxyshadis]

This forum exists for research and development purposes, as well as a source for anyone living where such copying is legal, where regulations are unclear, or they believe they have a "fair use" or "fair dealing" (in US/UK parlance) allowance. We don't know every local law perfectly, except that outright downloads eventually leads to prosecution, thus the hard line that anything bought or freely given is assumed OK while anything downloaded without authorization is not.

[rotty]

This forum exists for research and development purposes, as well as a source for anyone living where such copying is legal, where regulations are unclear, or they believe they have a "fair use" or "fair dealing" (in US/UK parlance) allowance. We don't know every local law perfectly, except that outright downloads eventually leads to prosecution, thus the hard line that anything bought or freely given is assumed OK while anything downloaded without authorization is not.

Yes that makes sense.
Thanks to you and everyone who took the time and trouble here.

[TheFluff]

I don't want to set the things on fire, but those laws people said about UK and Germany are not updated. Surely they may work a bit, depending on the attorneys, but these have been for long superseded by the new EU directives. IP legislation changes very quickly.

An EU directive is not a law, it is a request for member states to implement certain things into their own legislation as they see fit. As Wikipedia puts it, making the member states "achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result". There may or may not be local exemptions to the anti-circumvention directive under certain circumstances.

In the end though decrypting is probably illegal, but nobody cares if you don't redistribute the copies.

[Ghitulescu]

An EU directive is not a law, it is a request for member states to implement certain things into their own legislation as they see fit. As Wikipedia puts it, making the member states "achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result". There may or may not be local exemptions to the anti-circumvention directive under certain circumstances.

In the end though decrypting is probably illegal, but nobody cares if you don't redistribute the copies.

I know what a directive is, and one of the last countries to implement it was Spain, and got sanctioned by the EU, IIRC around 2008 or 9, quite a long time ago

and it's not "as they see fit", but as it is - this is called harmonisation

[petran79]

there you go

http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declared-legal-in-portugal-120927/

[TheFluff]

I know what a directive is
No, I don't think you do. Or if you do, you certainly don't understand how they work.

and it's not "as they see fit", but as it is - this is called harmonisation
I reiterate: the directive isn't a law. It contains instructions on how to write a law. The instructions generally aren't overly specific; the "harmonization" you refer to is basically limited to making sure the laws are "close enough" in each member country (since different countries have different legal systems and you obviously cannot implement a general directive immediately in the same way in every country). In this particular case the directive only states that there should be "adequate legal protection" against circumvention; there's nothing that says that lawmakers can't provide exceptions for personal use, nor is there any mention of what the consequences of infringing should be. In fact, if you look closer at this particular directive you'll find that there are certain parts of it that are voluntary to implement. One such part is article 5(b)(2), which explicitly allows member states to implement an exception for private copies for your own use. I once again reiterate that the directive is not a law. Looking at the directive will not tell you what is legal and not in your particular jurisdiction. Do not cite directives as if they were law.

If you are interested in continuing to play internet lawyer I'd strongly recommend you actually read the actual directive in question (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF) first. If you want a more easily accessible but still scholarly look at it, I recommend this paper (http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=dltr). I can certify that neither is a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon, but neither is making arguments based on hearsay and misconceptions.

[Ghitulescu]

I don't know where you get this thing in your head that I cnsider a directive to be a law.

I repeat, the implementation must be identical in all member states or bye bye harmonisation. The actual format is left at the states latitude, because some has to pass through parliament, others are royal decrees and so on.

There is a certain delay to implement a directive for procedural reasons, but failure to do is sanctioned, and a few countries have already been fined so far.

What would differentiate a country from another is the application of punishments, some countries have a "bagatelle" case, others the 3 strikes rule, others incriminate from the 100th sharing etc.

[TheFluff]

Congratulations on not reading my post at all, I guess? Again: there are explicitly voluntary provisions in the directive. A lot of specifics are intentionally left up to the lawmakers in each country.

[ukendt]

It looks like several mods are reading this thread. Although this issue has always been interesting, the way to approach this discussion must be kept civilized. Thx to You all for this.

[Ghitulescu]

Congratulations on not reading my post at all, I guess? Again: there are explicitly voluntary provisions in the directive. A lot of specifics are intentionally left up to the lawmakers in each country.

Have you read number 6 of the reasoning?
Without harmonisation at Community level, legislative activities at national level which have already been initiated in a number of Member States in order to respond to the technological challenges might result in significant differences in protection and thereby in restrictions on the free movement of services and products incorporating, or based on, intellectual property, leading to a refragmentation of the internal market and legislative inconsistency. The impact of such legislative differences and uncertainties will become more significant with the further development of the information society, which has already greatly increased transborder exploitation of intellectual property. This development will and should further increase. Significant legal differences and uncertainties in protection may hinder economies of scale for new products and services containing copyright and related rights.
Reasoning 7)
The Community legal framework for the protection of copyright and related rights must, therefore, also be adapted and supplemented as far as is necessary for the smooth functioning of the internal market. To that end, those national provisions on copyright and related rights which vary considerably from one Member State to another or which cause legal uncertainties hindering the smooth functioning of the internal market and the proper development of the information society in Europe should be adjusted, and inconsistent national responses to the technological developments should be avoided, whilst differences not adversely affecting the functioning of the internal market need not be removed or prevented.

Now, about national legal frame.
With the adhesion to EU, every member state agreed to subordinate its "independence" to EU, in many domains.

Let's consider this case. If a member state considers that the EU directive contravenes whatever principle they had, they can object to the Commission, or through their members in Parliament. If UK considered that this Directive is contrary in whole or in part to some solid principle, she could have amend the directive before reaching the Parliament, or blocked it there. Doing the other way, is against the EU Treaty and established regulations. But, wasn't UK always different :) ?!

The legislation of the Member States should be approximated in such a way as not to conflict with the international conventions on which the copyright and related rights laws of many Member States are based.

Coming back to the directive 2001/29/EC. Let's read together the passages.
There are two main articles that govern it, Art. 5 and 6.
Art. 5 governs the Exceptions. Art. 6 governs the "circumvention of technological means".
In layman words - art. 5 lists a series of uses that are exempted from protection (for instance the technological means of buffering - that allows HDTV/youtube to function over IP).

Art. 5.2(b) seems to be the most important of all Art 5.
in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject matter
concerned;
Hoopla, the lawmakers opened a door but there is still a lock on it. Let's read Art. 5.5
The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.
Well, copying a CD for private use interfere IMHO with the normal exploitation of the CD. :) So far, the exceptions under 5.2(b) are not that solid as people like to think (wishful thinking).

Let's go to Art. 6, to see whether the last lock is opened or not. Art. 6.4 seems to be the one that concern us, the "pirates".
Notwithstanding the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned.
A Member State may also take such measures in respect of a beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), unless reproduction for private use has already been made possible by rightholders to the extent necessary to benefit from the exception or limitation concerned and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(2)(b) and (5), without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures regarding the number of reproductions in accordance with these provisions.
The technological measures applied voluntarily by rightholders, including those applied in implementation of voluntary agreements, and technological measures applied in implementation of the measures taken by Member States, shall enjoy the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1.
The provisions of the first and second subparagraphs shall not apply to works or other subject-matter made available to the public on agreed contractual terms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
So, the things remain as they were :)
One can copy for private use a CD or DVD or BD which is not protected by technological means. If these exist, then no right for private copy. Well, one can break a leg to become a handicapped person, or fund a church/confession, and enjoy the freedom.

A CD generally is considered to be unprotected. It may contain SCMS (actually copybits that are translated into SCMS by a compliant player), and this falls under the section "number of reproduction". It may also contain any of those nasty copy protections, and then it's not allowed to copy it.
A DVD may contain CSS or not. If it doesn't, then it's free to copy. It also may contain copy protections and again it's forbidden to copy it.
A BD is by standard required to carry out a protection. So, any BDs are not copiable under the EU laws.

Moreover, reading Art. 7
Member States shall provide for adequate legal protection
against any person knowingly performing without authority any of the following acts:
(a) the removal or alteration of any electronic rights-management information;
....
if such person knows, or has reasonable grounds to know, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of any copyright or any rights related to copyright as provided by law, or of the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC
So, doing so (without authorisation - which one will never get it) makes you an offender of the law.

And I left the good stuff at the end.
Article 13
Implementation
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 22 December 2002. They shall forth with
inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication.
The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of domestic law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.


Final notes.

This is not the last directive. Several others have been issued since, on several neighbouring areas. One of them has been cited by me above.

The legal frame should be similar in the States, as all these amendments have been brought to EU by changes in the US legislation (DMCA etc) and of course their pressure.

Nevertheless, when in doubt please consult your legal advisor. He's paid to know all these and much more. He also should be updated.

[TheFluff]

Yeah, uh, that's not an uncontroversial way to read the directive at all.

By explicitly specifying that member nations adopt only eight of the twenty exceptions under Article 5 for the anti-circumvention provisions, it could be implied that the remaining exceptions may be inapplicable to Article 6. This disunity could spawn problematic situations. For instance while Article 5(2)(k) provides an exemption for the reproduction right for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche, if a person copies a copyrighted work for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche by circumventing some technological measures, the same is prohibited. This likely renders the particular exemption potentially futile, or at least drastically limits its scope. However, on the other hand, culling out only eight of the twenty exceptions for the anti-circumvention provisions could also mean that the member nations have to provide for at least eight exceptions, and they may decide, based on their domestic preferences, whether to adopt the remaining exceptions with regard to anti-circumvention provisions. Further, the EUCD may also fail to achieve its goal of harmonizing copyright law in the EU, as adoption of most of the exceptions under Article 5 is voluntary except for Article 5(1).

It should also be noted that just because the reasoning says that "we're trying to harmonize" that doesn't necessarily mean that's what actually ends up happening.

I might also add that even if you implement a directive wrong it may take upwards of a decade to get it corrected because usually even legal scholars (see quote above) have a hard time figuring out what the text of the directive actually means, so it has to be tried in court and wander all the way through the European courts and back again to the national lawmakers and that takes approximately forever. You can also get fined for not implementing directives and that can and does happen. Again, do not read the directive if you want to know what's actually legal in your jurisdiction and what isn't.

[Ghitulescu]

My point is that a directive is not hanging on air.

It is based on a treaty (several actually) whose main purpose is to harmonize. Therefore it is redundant, except in particular cases, to repeat on and on harmonize harmonize harmonize.

Therefore the directives have to be read bearing this fact in mind.

You are right in what the internal competition between the various groups of influence within EU and/or member states actually does.

From that directive, what concerns us is only the paragraph 5(2)(b), and of course 6(4), second paragraph (that refers back to 5(2)(b)).

I still couldn't find any reference to "those 8 out of 20" exceptions in the EUCD. There is however a google result, (UK’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION PROVISIONS OF THE EU COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE: AN ANALYSIS - AASHIT SHAH), which cites another paper, (Brian W. Esler, Technological Self-Help: Its Status Under European Law and Implications for U.K. Law, PRESENTATION AT THE 17TH BILETA ANN. CONF., Apr. 5-6, 2002), which is the root of the 8-of-20 rule. Which is BTW false, if you read what he wrote and why, and see that he didn't get the meaning of the exceptions, neither their correct interpretation. Which is rather strange for a man of law.

What is written there is clear. But I repeat it once more: The member states are required to implement all those 8 exceptions up to the maximum extent possible under their current national laws, some of them being based on previous EU directives :).
What does it mean?
Nasty. It means that there could be less exceptions (id est favourable cases for the private/lucrative user) than those existing in the directive. See eg the case of Slovenia, that doesn't allow the circumvention of technical means for private uses (5(2)(b) does not exist), only 5 out of 8 are legal.

To people that do not know how to read a legal text - that list in art. 5 is an exhaustive one - that means that those and only those exceptions are allowed (exceptions are always mentioned as they are, because they are exceptions and not the rule :) ). In other words, it's simpler to say All people of UK except Tom King (ad hoc made name) is allowed to vote, rather than listing dozens of millions of names.

How this directive should be implemented and what is the current status of its implementation is here (http://www.fipr.org/copyright/guide/eucd-guide.pdf).

[setarip_old]

I believe that my perhaps simplistic post #2 to this thread is still the appropriate response to the question raised in the initial post... Hi!

That certainly does sound like a legal question - and I believe the answer(s) would vary, depending upon what country you reside in.

In light of the fact that the Doom9 forum is not a forum specializing in legal findings, I'd suggest that you might try to locate a forum that does specialize in such legal matters and seek your answer there...