What weighs more when both contradict each other? Example: In the Netflix terms and conditions (section 4.6) is that you agree with the contract not to multiply the offered content, to circumvent the copy protection, etc. In the UhrG paragraph 53 "Private Copy" is exactly that invalidated so private copying is allowed so far it is not is a resale / rental. So what's right now? Which of these is going on?
The terms and conditions are user conditions, you will not legally act in violation of this person, however, you can be banned or banned
The law. Incidentally, AGB is already Plurar, that 's' makes no sense.
The copyright protection law even states that no effective protection mechanism must be bypassed in order to create such a copy.
§95a, paragraph 1)
"Effective technical measures to protect a work protected under this Act or any other subject-matter protected under this Law shall not be circumvented without the consent of the copyright holder, […]"
Paragraph 2)
"Technical measures within the meaning of this Act are technologies that are […] intended in normal operation to prevent or restrict acts protected or other acts protected under this Law which are not authorized by the rightholder. In so far as they control the use of a protected work or other protected subject matter under this Act by the right holder through access control, a protection mechanism such as encryption, distortion or other transformation or a duplication control mechanism that ensures the achievement of the protection objective becomes."
Thank you for your answer, but it raises the next question. Who will be punished? The account owner? The account member has violated the terms and conditions? Or all and the entire account?
Thank you for your detailed reply. However, I would also ask you to take a look over here: https://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/Audials-One-2018-Mitschneiden-von-legalen-StreamingdienstenQuellen-legal--f309967.html
Laws are only texts that everyone understands differently. Alone the quoted §53 I can read in different ways:
"Permitted here are individual copies of a work by a natural person for private use on any medium, provided that they are neither directly nor indirectly for profit purposes and unless a duplicate is used an obviously illegally produced or made publicly available template."
Especially the wording "as far as not duplicating an obviously illegally manufactured or made publicly available template is used." Leaves a lot of discretion. Let's read it so that a publicly available template may not be used for duplication. Thus, the Internet would be virtually dead, because nothing is offered publicly, should be downloaded. Or what is "obvious"? Does the source have to state that it is illegal? Splitting hairs. That's why there's only one thing that really matters and that's judgments!
If a court (the higher the instance, the better) eventually decides, it will appeal to it in the future. Thus, if the court decides in a high court that such a copy is permissible, then other courts will follow that judgment. Consequently, it is "legal". At least until someone with a lot of money and patience rebels against the verdict and strives for a new one. Does not happen too often.
To my knowledge, there's still no judgment in the direction, because it does not care Netflix the bean. Especially since they have to prove it to you first. Do you charge it to you? No matter! If you offer it somewhere to download, then the studios are on your mat with you. The source of the video does not matter at the moment, you will receive an injunction and may squeeze coal to the production company. However, here again we're in a different situation.
Want to say: Read the law as you like, what matters is judgments!
I.d.R. Only the contractor - that is, the owner of the account.
This has to be considered differentiated. General terms and conditions, as well as normal contractual agreements, change and / or circumvent dispositive law.
Only if a norm is of a mandatory nature may neither the GTC nor the contractual individual agreement violate it.
If your cited standard is mandatory (which is to be determined by interpretation in individual cases), the content of this clause is unlawful and the contract (or only the unlawful part, depending on the circumstances) is void.
