, it does appear that provided the viewing is for personal and private use,
I would be very weary of cherry-picking pieces of legislation and quoting them out of context to suit your desired line of argument.
You have to read and interpret it as a whole and in conjunction with other applicable legislation (as well as case law).... for example, you may wish to peruse the Digital Economy Act 2010, but there's no doubt many more apply too. Whilst you're at it, you might also wish to peruse all recent EU rulings, e.g.
one example of many being this one which makes a point of differentiating private copies that originated from lawful and unlawful sources:
37 Consequently, national legislation which makes no distinction between private copies made from lawful sources and those made from counterfeited or pirated sources cannot be tolerated.
38 Furthermore, when it is applied, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not draw a distinction according to whether the source from which a reproduction for private use is made is lawful or unlawful, may infringe certain conditions laid down by Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29.
39 First, to accept that such reproductions may be made from an unlawful source would encourage the circulation of counterfeited or pirated works, thus inevitably reducing the volume of sales or of other lawful transactions relating to the protected works, with the result that a normal exploitation of those works would be adversely affected.
40 Secondly, the application of such national legislation may, having regard to the finding made in paragraph 31 of the present judgment, unreasonably prejudice copyright holders.
41 It is apparent from the foregoing considerations that Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as not covering the case of private copies made from an unlawful source.
Don't forget there's also nothing stopping the content owners bringing a civil case against you.