Law26 Jun 2026
Case law › France
Mulholland Drive
French Court of Cassation, 1st civil chamber, 28 February 2006, No. 05-15.824
Private copying is an exception, not a right: it does not allow a user to demand the removal of a technical measure that prevents copying a DVD.
- Court
- French Court of Cassation, 1st civil chamber
- Date
- 28 February 2006
- Reference
- No. 05-15.824
- Parties
- Studio Canal e.a. v. UFC-Que Choisir et autre
Key takeaways
A buyer of the Mulholland Drive DVD could not copy it onto a video cassette because of an anti-copy device. Backed by a consumer association, he argued that the lock deprived him of his right to a private copy.
The Court of Cassation disagreed. Private copying is only an exception to the author's monopoly, which must be assessed in the light of the three-step test: it cannot conflict with the normal exploitation of the work. In the digital environment, copying a DVD threatens that exploitation.
The consequence still holds for video games: a user cannot rely on private copying to justify circumventing a console's or a game's protection.
The case had a sequel. On 19 June 2008, the Court of Cassation added that private copying cannot be the basis of a legal action: it can be relied on as a defence against an infringement claim, not to require a publisher to make copying possible. In the meantime, the Act of 1 August 2006 entrusted an administrative authority, now Arcom, with reconciling technical measures and exceptions.
For video games, the obstacle is twofold. The software part of a game is excluded from private copying and only gives a right to a backup copy. And the audiovisual elements run up against the Mulholland Drive solution as soon as a technical lock protects them.
