Homebrew Piracy, what is legal?

[Grimalkin]

Piracy, what's legal and what's not By no means should this document be used as a legal reference in court
Things to do (or in the process of researching): Patents, Trademarks and Emulators
This document is deemed public domain and can be reproduced, or altered freely by anyone. If you have any other information that discredits or contradicts information in this document, PM me on GBATEMP and we'll discuss which has more credibility and I'll add it into this document.

This is a simple report that I have researched (and used a lot of my work time to complete) in order to stop the f**king flaming in stupid legality battles over GBATEMP. This thread is meant only for discussion of facts and is not up for debate. Data used will be facts and not personal opinion. I am by no means, a legal expert and is only interpreting data obtained via internet or by publication.

So, how do we know if it is copyrighted?

In 1952, most, if not all major developed countries met at Geneva and agreed, accepted of acceeded to the Universal Copyright Convention; However, since most of the nations are now part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) had been accepted as the international agreement which is now dominent for all nations globally. The TRIPS outlined requirements that each nation's law must meet, such as: copyright rights (including rights of performers, producers of sound recording and broadcasting organizations), geographical indications, integrated circuit layout-designs, patents, monopolies for the developers of new plant varieties, trademarks, trade dress, and undisclosed or confidential information.

A TRIPS member requires their states to provide strong protection for intellectual property.
How to tell if your country is a TRIPS member: your country trades to the United States. Unless under certain circumstances such as war, financial and/or poverty aid.

-Copyright terms must extend to 50 years after the death of the author, although films and photographs are only required to have fixed 50 and to be at least 25 year terms, respectively.(Art.7(2),(4))

Also note that Anonymous work will expire 50 years after the work was deemed public.

-Copyright must be granted automatically, and not based upon any "formality", such as registrations or systems of renewal. (Wait, does that mean this article is copyright too?)

Apparently if the original author dies, the copyright is automatically transferred to closest relative and/or publications office (for another 50 years). I'm not actually sure about this one, but I'll find some sort of source for it later...

-Computer programs must be regarded as "literary works" under copyright law and receive the same terms of protection.

-Patents must be granted in all "fields of technology," although exceptions for certain public interests are allowed (Art. 27.2 and 27.3 [1]) and must be enforceable for at least 20 years (Art 33).

-Exceptions to patent law must be limited almost as strictly as those to copyright law.

-In each state, intellectual property laws may not offer any benefits to local citizens which are not available to citizens of other TRIPs signatories by the principles of national treatment (with certain limited exceptions, Art. 3 and 5 [2]).

Article 10
Computer Programs and Compilations of Data

1. Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).

2. Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself.

This is Article 10 (obviously) from the WTO Official Text, which signifies all work/code/compilations/etc. are considered as literary works. What does it mean? Wait, what does it mean...

If we look at the Berne Convention on literary works:

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, usually known as the Berne Convention, is an international agreement about copyright, which was first adopted in Berne, Switzerland in 1886.

ARTICLE-2
... (1) The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science. ...

So under the Berne Convention would cover all aspects of the media, such as: music, graphics (including Three-Dimentional Works), and the coding itself (regardless if it were in machine readable code, meaning the product in it's entirety).

Since the Berne Convention is gigantic, I'll let you guys decide what else is important. Berne Convention Reference In summary, all aspects of the media (which would include ROMs) is held under copyright. Also...

ARTICLE-11bis
... (ii) any communication to the public by wire or by rebroadcasting of the broadcast of the work, when this communication is made by an organization other than the original one; ...
... (iii) the public communication by loudspeaker or any other analogous instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds or images, the broadcast of the work. ...
... (3) In the absence of any contrary stipulation, permission granted in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Article shall not imply permission to record, by means of instruments recording sounds or images, the work broadcast. It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the regulations for ephemeral recordings made by a broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and used for its own broadcasts. The preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional documentary character, be authorized by such legislation. ...
... (3) In the absence of any contrary stipulation, permission granted in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Article shall not imply permission to record, by means of instruments recording sounds or images, the work broadcast. It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the regulations for ephemeral recordings made by a broadcasting organization by means of its own facilities and used for its own broadcasts. The preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional documentary character, be authorized by such legislation. ...

And by "work" we mean...

ARTICLE-1
... The countries to which this Convention applies constitute a Union for the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works. ...

So, we can't even record the sound or images (means video too) of the "work". So, if one were to make a video of the game, record sound from it, or take pictures, we'd be doing something illegal. Even more legal trouble if we try to broadcast it (via spoken, loadspeaker, or through wired-broadcast [including the internet]) we'd be in even more trouble. I'm also assuming that ROMs would fall under accordance to the Berne Convention as a recording of the original publication, which would mean: ROMs are illegal. However, I have yet to uncover anything about owning a copy and making a backup of the original publication(s). But, this would definitely be a loophole a lawyer in court would use against you. The Berne Convention takes priority before the TRIPS (because it was based accordingly to agree with the Berne Convention).

Now back to the WTO and TRIPS...

Article 11
Rental Rights

  In respect of at least computer programs and cinematographic works, a Member shall provide authors and their successors in title the right to authorize or to prohibit the commercial rental to the public of originals or copies of their copyright works. A Member shall be excepted from this obligation in respect of cinematographic works unless such rental has led to widespread copying of such works which is materially impairing the exclusive right of reproduction conferred in that Member on authors and their successors in title. In respect of computer programs, this obligation does not apply to rentals where the program itself is not the essential object of the rental.

Wait... so the original publication can be prohibited from rental? I never knew that. But... the last sentence is a contradiction to the previous statement, how do we deem what's "essential" to the rental or not?

Article 12
Term of Protection

Whenever the term of protection of a work, other than a photographic work or a work of applied art, is calculated on a basis other than the life of a natural person, such term shall be no less than 50 years from the end of the calendar year of authorized publication, or, failing such authorized publication within 50 years from the making of the work, 50 years from the end of the calendar year of making.

Well, I guess I found my answer to my previous inquiry about the expiration of the copyright. So, 50 years is the minimum term of protection, what about the maximum? Such information is not answered in either Berne Convention or WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

End: Copyrights

ROMs, are they legal?

ROMs by itself are not illegal (well, not exactly)..

In some countries, it is legal to make a "backup" copy of the original work. However, this backup cannot be used for entertainment purposes. This copy is to be used to prove that you own the game as an insurance against the original publication owners if the copy of the media is unreadable. In short, if the label falls off of your game cart, it breaks and you try to get a warrenty claim for it, but you can't prove that you owned it originally.

But, guess what?

In the United States, since 1983, it is illegal to make backup copies of video game media to other game cards (Sigh... flash cards). Which was the main precedence in the court case of Atari versus JS&A that their product allowed to create a ROM backup copy to a blank cartidge. In this battle JS&A argued that their product was used for archival purposes only, but the court disagreed, noting that ROM media was not subject to the same volatility as magnetic media.

Poor US, but what about the rest of the world? Still, no luck for anyone...

All manufactured software contains a End-User License Agreement (EULA). This document takes precedence above all media laws because it is a document that deems "fair-use" which is created by the "copyright owners" (See: So, how do we know it's copyrighted?). In most cases (if not all of them, and especially Nintendo), they print inside their game manuals that they disallow backups or archival copies.

After looking through a few of my legal media: Yeah, it's all there, and in normal print too. Now, whether these printings are valid through legal clause in terms of fair dealing; Not sure, but I personally don't want to bring them to court about it. Cases against copyright owners usually favor the copyright owner.

The 24-Hour Claim

Some websites claim that you may obtain ROMs for exactly 24-hours and is deemed "fair use". This claim is completely, and undeniably false. There has never been such a law.

Officially Licensed, Freely Licensed and Unlicensed ROMs, Oh my!

Now, there are some ROMs that have been officially licensed. Atari had made many of their original arcade games available in ROM for to work on the emulator MAME. Nintendo also provides a similar service on their Virtual Console. These are "legal" ROMs.

Freely Licensed ROMs are games/media that is no longer manufactured. However, they only become freely licensed when the original copyright owner announces that the media is "freely licensed" or the copyright holder(s) die and the Terms of Protection officially end (by end of calendar date of 50 years after the death(s)). Freely Licensed ROMs also include Homebrew.

Unlicensed ROMs are games that no longer make any profit and/or no longer able to be obtained in legal form. Legality varies between many countries; however, non-commercial and research use is permitted and legal. Still, some countries ensure that this practice is illegal, downloading abandonware is in vast majority, legal. In fact, there's no law about it in any North American convention!

That said, the legality of some of the NES, GB, SNES and older systems of the 80s and 90s would be legal. However, the games that can be obtained (whether or not it's for the same console) is still illegal. Games such as Super Mario World, which can be obtained on the GBA, would be still illegal -- downloading (note: I did not say distribute) games such as Final Fight, or E.V.O. would be legal until the copyright owner brings the game back into circulation. Unless, the copyright holder states that you are not allowed to download such ROMs. (Yay for loopholes).

Also relevant:

Abandonware (ripped from Wikipedia):

It is often the case that games which are still in copyright are no longer sold or marketed by their copyright holders. This may be due to the perceived lack of demand for the game or for other reasons. Some of those engaged in ROM trading claim that such games should be deemed abandoned by their copyright holders and that the game, termed "Abandonware", can be freely traded by users.

This invokes the concept of Abandonment from trademark law, whereby trademarks which are no longer exploited by their holders become abandoned. While this concept exists in trademark law, there is no equivalent concept in copyright law. In fact, the copyright laws of most countries, including all signatories of the Berne Convention, grant copyright holders the exclusive right to distribute, or not distribute, a work until such time as the copyright expires under law or is granted to the public domain by the copyright holder.

And also:

Commercial distribution (Taken from Wikipedia)

Commercial distribution of copyrighted games without the consent of the copyright holder is generally illegal in almost all countries, with those who take part in that activity being liable for both criminal and civil penalties.

Online auction sites such as eBay have sometimes been used by sellers to sell unauthorised copies of games which are advertised as legitimate copies. Such sellers, in addition to violating copyright laws, may also be prosecuted for fraud and/or false advertising.

So, I took a look into the previous quote from Wikipedia, apparently, we cannot sell media that we own. It is deemed commercial distribution and very illegal by copyright standards. Which is also funny, what if we trade in our games at a GameStop or EBGames? Technically, that would be commercial distribution on the consumer end. (Who knows, I'll add that to my list of things to research).

End of Document: I'll add patents, trademarks and emulators later, but I'll tell you something before I post it. Emulators are illegal, regardless of it's purpose and how the end-user uses the software. (Unless it was created by patent/copyright holder and licensed)

REFERENCES:
The WTO official text, retrieved via internet, Dec 15, 2007, http://www.wto.org
The Berne Convention Cross-Reference, retrieved via internet, Dec 15, 2007, http://www.law-ref.org/BERN/index.html
Nintendo's Intellectual Property FAQ, retrieved via internet, Dec 15, 2007, http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp
10 Big Myths about copyright explained, retrieved via internet, Dec 15, 2007, http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Copyright FAQ: 25 Common Myths and Misconceptions, retrieved via internet, Dec 15, 2007, http://users.goldengate.net/~kbrady/copyright.html

 

[Jackreyes]

Nice to know.
Well done.

So we now know what is legal and what isn't,
the question is... is anyone here going to take any notice?

 

[Grimalkin]

Probably not, but now we know it's set in stone here at gbatemp.

 

[BoneMonkey]

your just tring to justifing stealing games

and you are wrong ROMS ARE ILLEGAL

 

[Grimalkin]

your just tring to justifing stealing games

and you are wrong ROMS ARE ILLEGAL

Read the fucking article, or stfu.

 

[Sinkhead]

Nice article, I'm looking forward to further research...

- Sam

 

[Jackreyes]

I agree Grimalkin...
he should read before posting

 

[xJonny]

Yeah, basically people try to hide the common sense with bs like the 24-hour fair-use period and that its legal to use backups etc but its obvious you can't really get around law

Note that some games that might seem like abandonware are protected by the ESA

 

[Grimalkin]

Yeah, basically people try to hide the common sense with bs like the 24-hour fair-use period and that its legal to use backups etc but its obvious you can't really get around law

Note that some games that might seem like abandonware are protected by the ESA

Of course, if you actually take 5 minutes to read the initial summary of the Berne Convention, there's a lot of information there (if you can think about how it would be used in a courtroom) that signifies how illegal game backups are. Also, read the last reference link, there's a lot of misconceptions that this guy outlines, I emailed him a few times during my research to get some information(although he never replied, I got enough information from his webpage). The link itself is mainly for the united states, but I doubt it would be different globally (if you think logically).

 

[jumpman17]

Thank you so much for including the 24 hour rule. It drives me nuts when people say that.

 

[Urza]

Emulators are illegal, regardless of it's purpose and how the end-user uses the software.

Incorrect.

 

[cruddybuddy]

Thank you so much for including the 24 hour rule. It drives me nuts when people say that.

I agree. I hate it when people try to make me feel like I'm not breaking the law.

 

[Grimalkin]

Emulators are illegal, regardless of it's purpose and how the end-user uses the software.
Incorrect.




Correct. Software created that has means to infringe copyrights and/or patent and/or method of patent is illegal.

End-use is SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the developer of the software.

Read: Grokster vs the Supreme Court and any patent law.

QUOTE

Myth #2: I'm a software developer. How people use my programs is their problem, not mine.
Fact: This is a dangerous attitude to take, especially in light of the recent Grokster decision. In the Grokster case, the Supreme Court held that a developer of a technology must take steps so that it is not "actively inducing" infringement by its users. While this doesn't mean the developer has to police all of its users, it appears that the developer does have to take reasonable precautions as to the potential uses, and to not encourage or target infringement as a use for the technology. In addition, the developer may be expected to implement features that inhibit infringing uses. This case is recent, and there is little subsequent caselaw that interprets it. Therefore, the extent of those duties for technology developers is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, a prudent software developer will be very mindful of his/her product's capabilities and potential applications.

Why emulators are illegal will be explained in my next section.

 

[xJonny]

Yeah, I scan read through it

 

[Urza]

Emulators are illegal, regardless of it's purpose and how the end-user uses the software.
Incorrect.

Correct. Software created that has means to infringe copyrights and/or patent and/or method of patent is illegal.

End-use is SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the developer of the software.

Read: Grokster vs the Supreme Court and any patent law.

The ruling on MGM vs Grokster is pretty unclear. Emulators have substantial legal uses and most of the developers aren't helping the end-user conduct copyright infringement, nor are they actively advertising the software.

 

[Grimalkin]

[The ruling on MGM vs Grokster is pretty unclear. Emulators have substantial legal uses and most of the developers aren't helping the end-user conduct copyright infringement, nor are they actively advertising the software.

True. But don't get all conclusive yet, like I said before. It'll be explained later, after I gather all the facts about patent laws.

EDIT: Anyone notice how I never used the DMCA as a reference yet? Stupid useless law. Well, not useless, I just can't find use for it globally.

 

[lil-devil]

[The ruling on MGM vs Grokster is pretty unclear. Emulators have substantial legal uses and most of the developers aren't helping the end-user conduct copyright infringement, nor are they actively advertising the software.


True. But don't get all conclusive yet, like I said before. It'll be explained later, after I gather all the facts about patent laws.

EDIT: Anyone notice how I never used the DMCA as a reference yet? Stupid useless law. Well, not useless, I just can't find use for it globally.

didn't exaclty go though your whole post, but the information i read, i do agree with it and believe it's true
and good job man =)


PS: whats DMCA >_>;

 

[Grimalkin]

The Digital Millennium Copyrights Act, it's a bill that was passed in the united states before 2000. Also, it seems that the American government is pushing the Canadian Government to create a similar bill of the same name.

 

[Opium]

Emulators are illegal, regardless of it's purpose and how the end-user uses the software.
Incorrect.


Correct. Software created that has means to infringe copyrights and/or patent and/or method of patent is illegal.

End-use is SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the developer of the software.

Read: Grokster vs the Supreme Court and any patent law.


The ruling on MGM vs Grokster is pretty unclear. Emulators have substantial legal uses and most of the developers aren't helping the end-user conduct copyright infringement, nor are they actively advertising the software.

Most (not all but most) emulators advertise the feature of them being able to play commercial copyright infringing content. It is an advertised feature. For example iDeaS shows pictures of copyrighted commercial games being run on the emulator. DeSmuME has a commercial ROM compatibility chart and also shows pictures of the games running on the emulator. That wouldn't hold up in court. So yeah, emulators are pretty much illegal.

I wrote a small paper on the future of the internet and copyright in light of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) 2000 Act. So if anyone is interested in reading my insight have a look:

QUOTE

The future of copyright and the internet in light of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000

Technology like the internet moves at such a rapid pace of development that copyright law has a hard time staying current. In Australia, the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 (CADA) was developed to help update Australia’s copyright laws and keep them current with new technological advances. “The development of new communications technologies has exposed gaps in copyright protection under the Copyright Act 1968” (Attorney-General’s Department, 2001. p1). This essay shows that in the seven years since the Act was passed it has already proved to be outdated and ineffective for protecting copyright in certain situations. The ways in which copyright law has been evaded and CADA measures rendered ineffective show a possible insight into the future relationship that may develop between copyright and the internet.

Despite CADA introducing new measures specifically targeted at ‘circumvention devices’ the High Court of Australia ruled that ‘modchips’ (devices that allow videogame consoles to play copied or ‘burnt’ game discs downloaded from the internet) were legal. CADA defined a ‘circumvention device’ as:

“…a device (including a computer program) having no, or only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than the circumvention, or facilitating the circumvention of, a technological protection measure. (Attorney-General’s Department, 2001. p5)

Sydney resident Eddy Stevens was sued by electronic giant Sony for selling modchips out of his home residence and after four years of battling Sony he took an appeal to the High Court of Australia and won (Sydney Morning Herald, 2005). A modchip, a device mainly used to circumvent copy protection on videogames, was ruled to be legal in Australia. The reason the High Court deemed modchips were legal was because besides allowing illegal copies of games to run, the device could allow the videogame console to play videogames from other regions. Bypassing region locks on other products such as DVDs is perfectly legal in Australia. The Australian Comsumer and Competition Commission intervened in the case and argued that region locking created ‘artificial trade barriers between Australian and overseas games and DVD markets’ (The Australian IT, 2005). Although CADA made specific mention to protecting copyright owners from ‘circumvention devices’ it failed to render modchips illegal in Australia. If hardware modifications that circumvent copyright protection are allowed to survive in Australia they may have an effect on internet usage with an increase in illegal activity such as downloading pirated copies of videogames. The High Court’s ruling and the slow upkeep of copyright law in Australia has helped rather than hindered internet piracy in Australia. This may lead to a future where copyright holders will have to more actively lobby the government to make changes to copyright law.

Introducing new law enforcement measures was a major area of reform CADA introduced (Attorney-General’s Department, 2001. p2), yet internet music piracy is still rampant. This has led to the music industry having to rethink its approach to selling music. Popular band Radiohead has led the way by allowing people to ‘pay what you want’ for their latest studio album off their website. People wanting to buy the album are allowed to pay whatever price they wish, including paying nothing and downloading the album for free. Radiohead did not have to sign to a publishing label to release this album, so all profits go straight to the band. This has music executives worried about the ramifications on the music industry and how it can adapt. An executive at a major European record label told TIME (2007):

“If the best band in the world doesn't want a part of us, I'm not sure what's left for this business….Radiohead is the best band in the world; if you can pay whatever you want for music by the best band in the world, why would you pay $13 dollars or $.99 cents for music by somebody less talented? Once you open that door and start giving music away legally, I'm not sure there's any going back.”

Legally downloading full albums for free is shaping up to be the future of the music industry. If albums aren’t offered for free music piracy will still exist. Musician Prince has proven that while record sales have decreased there is still money to be made by offering music for free. Prince gave away his album ‘Planet Earth’ in a UK Newspaper, and then went on to sell out all 21 of his concert dates in London. This shows how free music can be a brilliant promotional tool and can help an artist raise revenue in other areas rather than the direct selling of their work. The future for copyright holders may be to make what people are doing illegally with their copyright legal and harness the power and promotional aspect of the internet to make money. Videogame companies are already catching on to this way of thinking as Ubisoft showed when they released three popular videogames free of charge and instead made revenue through advertisements embedded in the games (Kotaku, 2007).
John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a writer for Wired magazine argues that copyright law was inherently designed for physical items and it can not be extended to digital products (Barlow, 1994).

“If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our possession, how can we protect it?” (Barlow, 1994. p1)

In the physical world a seller gives a product to a consumer. The physical product changes hands and leaves the seller without the product. But in the digital environment the seller loses nothing, they only pass on a copy that can they can still infinitely reproduce as they wish. The seller will never be one copy less of a product for selling it. It costs money that has to be raised in revenue to create more copies of a physical product yet it costs nothing to distribute and copy a digital product. Musicians such as Prince and Radiohead have already shown it is still possible to raise money needed to continue their work while still offering their product for free. This is an exciting frontier that will expand in the future as companies become more aware of the vastly different form copyright should take when considering the internet.

One of the aims of CADA is to “provide reasonable access and certainty for the end users of copyright material online” (Attorney-General’s Department, 2001 p1), yet since the Act the issue of ‘reasonable access’ has been brought into question by DRM technology. DRM stands for ‘Digital Rights Management’ and it is a protection system for digital files that stipulates a range of things such as what devices a file can be used on. DRM is most commonly used on music files by large companies such as Microsoft so that legally downloaded music will only work on certified devices. Even though it may seem to be the perfect tool to defend copyright it has an ultimate flaw in that it unreasonably restricts both consumer access and certainty. Central to the debate is that people can illegally download unprotected music and are able to use it on any device they wish. This makes it difficult for consumers to do the right thing and legally buy media that is limited in what it can do. This is the underlying failing of DRM. Peter Eckersley, from the Department of Computer Science & Software Engineering and Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, makes the point that a technological copyright protection measure can be effective if it “makes purchasing licensed copies of information goods the most attractive choice, for most consumers” (Eckersley, 2003 p5). The other point is that the ‘certainty’ of media is not assured. In 2006 Microsoft announced their Zune media player which used its own DRM technology. It did not support Microsoft’s own ‘Plays For Sure’ network of DRM devices and online music stores (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2006). Legitimate customers were unable to move their legally bought music collection from one of Microsoft’s other services onto the new Zune media player. DRM harms legitimate customers as their legally bought files lack the choice or security that their illegal counterparts do. Also if a service that offers DRM products closed down the users would be left behind with their files on a dead format. The aim of CADA was to stop something like this from happening by protecting consumer rights for ‘reasonable access and certainty’ for copyright material online, yet it was unsuccessful. In the future copyright holders may abandon DRM due to the harmful effects to consumers and instead offer unrestricted products.

The future of copyright and the internet looks to be a continued struggle between protecting copyright the old fashioned way and an attempt by internet users to defeat the old way of thinking. New laws and amendments like CADA will continue to be introduced, yet still fall far behind the speed at which the internet and its users advance. Until companies realise the digital environment is fundamentally different to the physical plane there won’t be any productive advances. There is hope however as companies move away from archaic protection of copyright, like Apple and EMI who announced they dropped DRM from their music (TrustedReviews, 2007) and musicians and videogame companies offering their products for free online. If this continues the future could be a world where the internet is used to its true potential.



References

Attorney-General’s Department, 2001. Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 fact sheet
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/...0factsheet-2001 [Last Accessed 1.11.07]
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf...nt+Act+2000.pdf [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

AustralianIT, 2005. Mod chips ruled legal
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/...7-15306,00.html [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

Barlow J, 1994. The Economy of Ideas
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas.html [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

Eckersley P, 2003. The Economic Evauluation of Alternatives to Digital Copyright, p5
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~pde/writing/serciac.pdf [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2006. Microsoft's Zune Won't Play Protected Windows Media
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/09/micro...d-windows-media [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

Kotaku, 2007. Ubisoft Titles Go Free On Fileplanet
http://kotaku.com/gaming/free-games/ubisof...anet-295680.php [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

Sydney Morning Herald, 2005. High Court chips away at Sony's stranglehold
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/high...8562943280.html [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

TIME, 2007. Radiohead Says: Pay What You Want
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1666973,00.html [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

TrustedReviews, 2007. EMI Drops DRM In Joint Announcement With Apple
http://www.trustedreviews.com/pcs/news/200...t-With-Apple/p1 [Last Accessed 1.11.07]

You can download a .doc copy of my paper HERE.

 

[golden]

Thank goodness someone else has done their homework. Nice job Grimalkin, now I know there is someone else and others reading that will learn these important facts.