migo said:
...
Copyright protection should never exist in the first place. It's presuming guilt without proof, and only punishes legitimate customers.
I'm assuming you're referring to DRM limitations here.
Yeah, those are pretty inane, considering that 20+ years have shown them to be patently ineffective against the pirates they're meant to curtail (...barring the PS3 for several years, but there it was part of the console itself, and even that eventually fell), and they can prevent customers from the taking the legitimate back-ups when otherwise entitled to do so by the law.
Copyright Legislation should also revert to something much more reasonable, the way it was at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Well, that might be going a bit far, but a rebalancing between industry and consumer rights is certainly overdue... also for the sake of the industry, which don't seem to get that it's because the law is so heavily slanted in their favour - with no rights to correspond to the obligations - that it's so damn hard to get people to respect it.
When it comes to games with a market position, there is a legitimate need for allowing investors, developers, and retailers to turn a profit off them; otherwise we wouldn't be seeing any games. That protection should be dependant on there being an actual market position for the product on the national market though, it should expire much faster than it does today (maybe 15 years from the last update to the product), it should not prevent back-ups, and the sanctions attached to it/compensations awarded under it should be made proportional.
Considering that the creation of most of the world's copyright legislation is dominated by the US - where the process is again dominated by industry lobbyism - that's not going to happen any time soon though. Despite the fact that anyone familiar with legal sociology could tell them that the current approach is pretty much as dead an end as prohibition was.