Gitlab is apparently a US based company. Unlikely that they would be more courages than Github.
back
2 comments
Yes, but having a complete copy of all my projects in a matching self-hosted environment mitigates a huge amount of risk because it would still be there if I got banned from GitLab.com. I could still use the workflow and tooling I'm used to. Contrast that with GitHub where losing your account means losing the workflow and tooling you depend on.
I'm not talking about trying to re-host a controversial project though. I'm more interested in the risk to the average small developer where getting banned would ruin your life, but wouldn't make the news.
My statement didn't imply you should use Github, but that there is no reason to feel more save with Gitlab.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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/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.
I'm afraid that the French Supreme Court disagrees with you on both points (https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publi...)
As it must, because the European directive has primacy.
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.
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.