The DMCA makes it pretty clear that "Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures" is illegal. There are no exceptions for whether you own or redistribute the content in question.

[–] Delzur@vegantheoryclub.org 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's not needed.

If another law says you have a right to create backups of digital content you own, then two laws are in conflict. Why would dcma have precedence?

No idea about US, but in some countries it would be up to judges, and with enough rulings it would be settled one way or another.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Aussie copyright law gives us the right to circumvent protections in order to make copies to watch on a device the original can't be played on.

Linux out of the box is remarkably incompatible with DRM protected content and so makes an excellent thing on which one might want to watch, listen to, or read a thing

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't happen to know what whereabouts in legislation that's detailed, do you?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Circumvention: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s116an.html

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If another law says you have a right to create

That law doesn't exist and that's not how law works. Law does not specify what is allowed, only what isn't. Breaking encryption isn't.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

What are you talking about? Law absolutely can specify that something is allowed.