I think you'll find the logic behind anti-circumvention is not to restrict innovation, but to put reasonable limits on illegal sharing. If the keys and lock-picks were not being widely shared so that the work could be more easily consumed without payment, there'd be little protest against reasonable innovative use of them.

Ford and GM have been taking each others cars apart for as long as they've existed. The difference is, they actually innovated, instead of copying, and they didn't throw the keys around in an attempt to destroy each others businesses. It's a fine line, but it is generally respected, and where it's not, there is litigation.

So, the illegal sharers created this anti-circumvention problem. I think you need to be asking them, and not copyright legislation, to fix it.

Don't hide behind the innovation argument to excuse illegal file sharing. That does no-one any good in the long run --- creators or consumers.

If I buy a copy for my use that means I can do with it whatever I please except to redistribute it ! The term licensing is just to hold us hostage ! Fight it !

Olduvai,

Do we hate copyright, or corporations? I think you might want to figure that out first.

Many corporations also abuse other reasonable laws, such as environmental protections. Does that mean we should weaken environmental protections?

Fair "dealing" (as it is known in Canada) is actually a veritable cornucopia of user permissions. All that's required to take advantage of them is to learn them, respect them, and insist upon them.

I am not a corporation; just a humble creator, and I have in my hands many a valuable copyright. Valuable to me, because I created the works they protect.

Let's make sure we're not mixing the apples with the screwdrivers. I hear you on corporate restrictions, but when you talk copyright it sounds like the usual "stuff for free" echo chamber.