It’s actually exactly the other way around: countries don’t comply with other countries’ copyrights, but they must offer the same level of protection to authors of works created abroad as they give to authors of works created locally (I.e. non-discrimination of foreign works/authors). And they must also offer a minimum level of copyright protection as specified in the convention. The egregious content removal remedies offered by the DMCA in the US are luckily not part of those minimum protections, so most sane countries have a more balanced procedure for content removal remedies.

The whole point of DMCA is that it's a relatively recent extensions/addition to the copyright law that USA had before, which matched the Berne convention.

The non-DMCA parts of copyright are pretty much the same in USA as across the whole world, as they have been harmonized with international treaties. The extra requirements of DMCA (e.g. restrictions on circumventing technical measures of copyright protection), however, are country-specific and not widespread elsewhere.

That is a pretty big simplification, both partly true and false. There is international cooperation but copyright has significant differences between countries and having a copyright claim in one country does not always mean you have it in another.

And which of these treaties exactly has a problem with the reverse engineering work done here? Nobody is claiming that Tesla doesn't have copyright on their software, if that copyright allows them to restrict this work is an entirely different kettle of fish, and depending on local laws.

DMCA also makes lot's of reverse engineering illegal. And that is the relevant issue here.

Netherlands is lucky to not be Indonesia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusations_of_ExxonMobil_hu...

Well, more precisely, they didn't trust that the private company was providing everything, presumably:

> The NFI found that Tesla had complied with data requests from the Dutch authorities, but left out a lot of data that could have proven useful.

They asked for data, were given data, when they looked further they found it was incomplete.

I don't think there's anything particularly weird about this; if you're investigating something, you probably shouldn't uncritically trust the object of your investigation.

That is just an assumption, there is nothing as far as I am aware that points in this direction.

NFI does plenty of research on its own.

But you should still have the right to arm the bears if you find a bear. Maybe this is why you have such a bear shortage?