The first link is broken !BlueTemplar wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:48 pmNote also that, unlike what you say, breaking copy protection is still illegal if you're using it in order to use your private copy exception exception, and is, like "normal piracy" (= one-person counterfeiting) punished by up to 3 years in jail and a 300k€ fine.
Thankfully, in practice, the courts seem to have decided that that (2006) law was bullshit, since they've declared the association that tried to force their hand as irresponsible because it was a case of force majeure.
I would say something like: you can lobby the deputees and senate as much as you declare, it's legal in france, they can write laws that exactly fits the need of the lobbist. But then when it's brought to court, the judges need to decide. And it's foribidden to give THEM money so that they do what you want.
In the official text, isn't there still a law that prevent woman from wearing pants ? yet in practice it is considered "archeological", and is never applied. The whole noise with DRM and "force majeure" is just the barkling of a dog that cannot bite but still try to be scary to my eyes.
There are (at least ofc) 2 differents articles that are related to those case, one is the 122-5 of the "Code de la propriété intellectuelle". official french laws website This one is more generic about intellectual property, more for song videos photographs, drawing, architecture etc. This has a lot to do with private copying for personnal use.
The other one is more precise about software it's 122-6, and detail the cases where and why one is allowed to copy and reverse engineer it. 122-6
There are constant changes to those laws, so maybe it is a bit different the day i'm writing this but the two laws were updated/revised since 2006, in 2018 at least, for some reasons.
And while we are here, this very law is said to be quoted in a decree made the 05 of august 2019, but this one looks even more of a brain-torture to read, i guess that's the whole point of writing laws in such a complex manner that you need to be lawyer to understand it which is in blatant contradiction with the principle that "everyone should know and obey the law".
I agree with the first part, i was confused when i wrote "supply and offer" the debate is still open on the second part, but that doesn't belong to this thread