But both national law states it's OK, and there is a ruling by Court of Justice of the European Union stating that Reverse Engineering done by owner even of a program license (EULA style) to make it work or fix errors is legal.
If the law is huge and complex, and a large company wants to make your life hell...
Reverse Engineering (Decompiling) software that you own to fix errors and allow interoperability is explicitly allowed.
I fear that (allowing for the "someone with enough money and lawyers can make your life hell" effect) you are not.
It is either that or DRM means the OEM gets to remotely shut down entire train network whenever they like? Imagine the money one could make with such a service.
That's bonkers. And criminal.
Neither cares about breaking DRM or IP, but third party (including vendor) manipulation.
For example article 6, part 2 (a) does not allow the information retrieved to be used for any purpose other than establishing interoperability. The hackers stepped over that line when they released some of what they discovered for the purpose of publicly criticizing the manufacturer.
This isn't DRM (though that's bad too). It's far worse. It's ransomware, they hijacked trains. Everyone involved should be locked in a dungeon for the better part of a century.
Newag's revenue is about $300 million. This isn't Siemens.
https://www.traple.pl/legalna-dekompilacja-programu-komputer...
The article is in polish, but auto-translate should do it's job easily.
We also have this right:
The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.
Article 5(3) and 6.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32...
I don't know what other provisions of EU law might apply here. But it is literally the job of the lawyers issuing the threats to find potential gotchas like that. I would assume that they are competent.
you cant call breaking someone elses property a business practice
In this meaning, copyright is not the same as authorship rights, which is a basis of intellectual property protection in Europe.
Similarly for software patents, they do not work in EU.
copyright having exceptions does not mean that copyright does not exist
unless you claim that copyright does not exist in USA because they have fair use?
That's why we have the relevant legal act discuss separate aspects of "moral" and "financial" "Author's rights" to a creation, instead of just singular "copyright", and why American-style "public domain" does not exist in Polish legal system, or that of many other EU countries (US' style public-domain involves effectively losing all rights to the creation, including moral ones, whereas those are non-dismissible, non-transferable and permament in Polish law).
The exact way things differ would probably require a philosopher and a lawyer to discuss differences of.
(a) copyright (b) moral rights
which are separate. Maybe it was badly described or I misremember what I learned decade ago.
The first test of an open source license in court was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer. It was initially lost on a somewhat similar argument. Namely that it was a contract, not a copyright license, and then was an unenforceable contract and therefore invalid. This decision was reversed on appeal.
I have no particular reason to believe that the first French judge to rule on an open source license did a better job than the first US judge to do the same. Both ruled against the license.