When would that be? With the current system of extending copyright always before it expires, no creative work will ever enter the public domain.

There would be a need to ban retro-active copyright extension also.

And that's an outrage.

The revenue that they get from 'auxcillary', third-party rights & paid advertising will NEVER be reported to you IN FULL. Trust me.

That's why, in part, Heather Robertson laid a 'class action' lawsuit against The Globe & Mail. It took her 10 years, TEN YEARS, to get a settlement …

Google it.

"We can now purchase games directly from the manufactures site which are downloaded on the hard drives of these consoles and consumers are not given the proper authority to back them up legally in case these consoles fail. So one would have to re-purchase all these games they already bought which can cost hundreds of dollars."

Not sure where you're getting this from. Sony's PS3 allows users to copy all their save files and DLC onto an external drive (USB, etc.) and transfer it to the console hard drive later (if your game saves happen to be copy protected, you can back them up on an external drive by doing a systems backup). Meanwhile, Microsoft will allow users to transfer DLC licenses between Xbox360s, so if a user suffers a critical hardware failure, they can simply transfer the DLC licenses to a new console and re-download the DLC.

Actually some of the newer games don't allow save files to be copied over to external drives. The new UFC Undisputed is one such game. You get a message with respect to the save files being copy protected and can not be copied over or backed up on the PS3. It's starting to become a very common thing with the PS3 with newer released games within the past 6 or 7 months. There are a few others I've rented that have the same thing. I don't have the titles off the top of my head. I own UFC. Same with DLC such as add ons that install themselves in the game data install directory on PS3.

If the game developer doesn't allow you to back up installed game files on the PS3, your downloaded add-ons (which you don't have the option of backing up before install) will be toast if the PS3 HD fails.

Laws need to be made where companies must have "lockers" available where purchased content can be stored under an account name at the developers site to ensure purchases are protected.

by "add-ons" I mean additional purchased game content, like map packs, and other enhancements for purchased games.

Just some further explanation. On the PS3 this is what I get when trying to copy my save game files under UFC Undisputed 09.

"Copying of this saved data is not allowed"

I went to the back up utility they have. You can not backup on a network drive, it has to be through USB key, external USB Hard drive or an SD card are the options.

Since the majority of USB and SD memory cards hold considerably less then the current Hard drives available on the PS3, a purchase of an external USB hard drive is required to back up most data.

Furthermore when trying to back up you get a notice. And if you read through it, you'll see at the bottom: "Limitations may apply when backing up certain copyright protected content. Refer to the online manual for more info"

The online manual states with respect to "Saved data from playstation format software" that "Copy-protected data can not be restored"

I have recently purchased a number of game add-ons for Burnout Paradise City and Tiger Woods 2010 which upon completion had no option to do anything but install them. The save game data files do not reflect the size of the add-ons purchased, so they should be in the install directory which I need to purchase a USB external Hard drive to use for backup, when there's no guarantee it will back up my purchased content.

Thanks for your comment, Jkobo. I think our respective understandings of 'own use' when it comes to legal protection for TPMs may be different. Generally, I don't take issue with legal protection for TPMs that prevent access to a work. However, I do have some pause for concern when it comes to legal protection for TPMs that prevent copying of a work. With respect to access controls, I don't think persons should be able to circumvent a TPM for their own use. With respect to copy controls, I think that persons that have paid for access to the work, or otherwise have authorized access to the work, should be able to take advantage of relevant fair dealing exceptions. With that all said, I am fairly indifferent to TPMs relative to other copyright reform issues. I have a stronger interest in reforms that help ensure creators are fairly compensated without a need for TPMs.

I completely agree with you on this. The arguments creators often put to the table is the need to put protective measures like TPM's in play due to the lack of compensation and fear of their works being thrown on the net.

However, there has been a lot of problems with respect to that argument, and industry has effectively nullified it when they have been caught on several occasions abusing TPM's and DRM. Sony installed invasive root kits that attempted to install software to see what you were up to.

Furthermore, purchased material from a whole range of sources all of a sudden has it's intended uses reduced, and then upsold to remove the locks. Greed often gets in the way of just causes in all industry, and I think what we need to do is to throw in compensation into the networks, and force in new business and ad models so that the creators can be fairly compensated without the need for protection.

Laws can only go so far when they in large part can not be enforced. It's like an arms race that ends in a stale mate. Not matter what laws or technical measures are put into place to protect creators, there will always be counter measures and ways of ensuring anonymity to break them. It's a no win for either side.

Monetizing the networks and forcing in new sustainable business models is a win/win.

"Their draconian anti-tinkering provision has not stopped piracy, it has only chilled innovation"

Did innovation stop in the US after the DMCA was introduced? Or how about in Japan or the EU after they introduced their anti-circumvention legislation? Haven't we seen a tremendous amount of innovation out of these countries over the past decade?

I'm sorry, but the obvious empirical evidence of the past decade strongly suggests that the "real threat" of digital lock-up and chilling innovation is more imagined than real.

See, for example, Laurianne McLaughlin, "After ElcomSoft: DMCA Still Worries Developers, Researchers," IEEE Software, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 86-91, Mar./Apr. 2003, doi:10.1109/MS.2003.1184177
for examples of the stifling effect that the DMCA has had on research in the USA. It's arguably one of the reasons why more and more research is coming out of China these days.

But, see contra:

1) June Besek, "ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION LAWS AND COPYRIGHT: A REPORT FROM THE KERNOCHAN CENTER FOR LAW, MEDIA AND THE ARTS" (2004) 27 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 385, where, after a rigorous survey of the impact of anti-circumvention legislation in the United States, Prof. Besek concludes that (a) "technological protections are not yet as pervasive or as intrusive as critics have feared. A host of legal, technological and market factors work together to counter digital lockup and provide a safety valve to accommodate legitimate uses," (b) "existing evidence does not support new statutory exemptions", and (c) "we should allow the new types of digital deliveries that are promoted by DMCA § 1201 the opportunity to continue to flourish."

2) Patricia Akester, "Technological Accommodation of Conflicts between Freedom of Expression and DRM: The First Empirical Assessment" (May 2009), online: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law (http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/faculty-resources/download/technological-accommodation-of-conflicts-between-freedom-of-expression-and-drm-the-first-empirical-assessment/6286) who, after a rigorous review of anti-circumvention in the UK, similarly concluded that (a) the "nightmarish vision of digital lock-up has not materialized", (b) "DRM has not impacted on many acts permitted by law", (c) while beneficiaries of exceptions reported limited or no enjoyment of the exception, in many cases they were not able to provide evidence in support of those claims, and (d) beneficiaries of privileged exceptions who claim to have been prevented from carrying out those permitted acts because of DRM have not used the complaints mechanism set out in UK law.

The problem with any analysis like this is that it is, of course, exceeding difficult to measure the innovation that hasn't happened since, for example, the DMCA was passed. No doubt the vast majority of cases will never be known, because they ended with a decision at some level of management that "this line of R&D is too risky".

Then, by your logic, any assertion about the impact (or lack thereof) of legal protection for TPMs has had on piracy must be similarly speculative and incapable of being established.

It's certainly extremely difficult to establish for sure, yes. That's why we see different studies come to different conclusions.
Looking at the very big picture - comparing US users of P2P networks before and after the DMCA, comparing the percentages of the populations that use P2P networks in countries with and without legal protection for TPM - gives an idea. It certainly shows that the DMCA wasn't a cure-all, for example.

I agree.

p.s. You might find this 'abbreviator' useful for long links, in future: - http://tinyurl.com

Carry on …

More imagined than real? Can you imagine being locked up in prison, away from your family, for months? Seriously give it a try. Now imagine that the reason for your imprisonment was because you presented a paper on an implementation of a simple encryption scheme by Adobe Systems. This situation was very real for Dmitry Sklyarov, thanks to anticircumvention laws.

How about the Princeton research blocked by the DMCA?

How about the judgement against 2600 magazine which effectively bans publishing results of cryptography research?

How about the fact that Linux DVD playing software can only safely be developed outside of the US?

How about companies blocking competitors from making laser toner cartridges and garage door openers?

How about Apple Computer using the DMCA to block RealNetworks from selling music downloads to people who own iPods?

That's just a few of the cases that actually get documented. Most don't, because by definition chilling effects cause research not to be done in the first place. For example, if I'm a chemical engineer and I want to compete with printer companies because I've got a great new idea for an ink formula, I probably won't even start development because I know that they'll come after me with anti-circumvention laws. Innovation stops in its tracks, but no news story is generated.

I am not sure what your idea of 'tinkering' is, sjbrown. However, if there is a strong enough public interest and utility in your tinkering -- say for example, you do encryption research -- I trust you will be able to take advantage of an exception to anti-circumvention provisions which will undoubtedly show up in the next bill. Anti-circumvention is not simply an American thing. Check out, for example, the laws of all of the European Union countries, which arguably have stricter laws.

"No they don't need that protection." I think rightsholders that invest millions of dollars in bringing works to market may beg to differ. When you buy the media that contain those works you don't buy their copyrights. Many other rightsholders, of course, for business and other reasons, don't and won't choose to apply digital locks to their works.