Don't push the shift key

[BJ_M]

it may be your computer - but in most cases it is not your software that runs it or is loaded on it ....

not your software in that you do not own it -- only the right to use it ...

[gitreel]

When is this change of terms going to stop?

They should be charged with fraud.

I don't go around saying oh, you didn't buy that car.
You only have the right to use it.

That is total bs. If I bought it, I will do whatever I bloody well want to with it.

Their changing of terms is just their greedy way of trying to extract more money from me.

There is no law on the books or constitutional amendment that guarantees them the right to stay in business.

[ViRaL1]

When is this change of terms going to stop?

They should be charged with fraud.

I don't go around saying oh, you didn't buy that car.
You only have the right to use it.

That is total bs. If I bought it, I will do whatever I bloody well want to with it.

Their changing of terms is just their greedy way of trying to extract more money from me.

There is no law on the books or constitutional amendment that guarantees them the right to stay in business.

This is nothing new, this has always been the case. It's the difference between physical property and intellectual property.

With physical property you're buying a product. CDs, DVDs, software, books etc, you're just buying a license to USE them.

I will say though, that it's pointless to design 'Anti-Piracy' technology that RELIES on me doing something I'm not required to do. AutoPlay is a feature, an 'option' if you will. Nothing says that I'm obligated to leave it enabled.

[Doramius]

Let's use a for instance on the whole software & media dilemma. Copyright is inherently set up to allow an artist (wether it be through writing, music, acting, or pictoral) to show their work over a period of time and earn a name for themselves without someone else making claim to their work. The ADDED benefit is that they can make money on it without someone else taking the credit of a stolen idea and profiting from it's disbursal among public. Back then a person didn't live long and didn't need to worry about too much of what happens to their kids when they are gone.

Today, companies can last many years and people are getting lazy and aren't as heavily trying to make names for themselves. Instead, they are greedy. Now if a person dies, the copyright is inhereted by the surviving family. Honestly, when the person dies, the copyright should die too as the original author has no need of the money. At that point they should have made a name for themselves and people who take his work will have to understand that others will know part of their work is someone elses. An example of this is Jingle Bells. Tons of people use it and have made variations on it. When you hear melodies of it, you know it's jingle bells and that the person signing it is not the author of it.

Companies are so worried about what they made in the past and it's preservation that they cease to focus on creating anything new and inventive. Using this thought, copyright can be a hinderence to growth over long periods of time. An example is Disney and Mickey Mouse. Everyone knows Disney created Mickey Mouse. It will forever be known that way by people and if a Mickey Mouse has a Disney logo on it, it will be known as authentic. If Mickey hits public domain, what does this mean for Disney? Only that others may take a small percentage of their money in profits for an icon that's nearly 100 years old. What will they do then? They may have to rely on Donald, and then Goofy, Minnie, Daisey,.........Herbie, Flubber, Shaggy Dog........Mary Poppins, Jungle Book, ......and several characters and stories of companies they've bought out over the last few years like NEST, Henson Puppeteering, etc.

Copyright has grossly gone out of hand and I think it should stop. Most actors get paid up front and very few have contracts that state they'll receive any percentage of DVD sales. They have very little to gripe about, unless they have the DVD sales receipts in their contract. They make out pretty well. The music and it's artists are the worst when it comes to throwing out legal suits for copyright. Next come the Production companies for movies. This is because they want every penny that comes from anything related to their ideas. There were huge fights back in the 80's because of names.
- For instance: The name John is first copyrighted by Unuversal Studios in 2004 (Not really. it's only an example). Anyone already named John born well before the year 2004 would not be able to use their name for marketing because Universal copyrighted it. Technically you couldn't even name your kid John. If you sold toilets, you could not use john as an advertisement or company name because You would be making a profit off of a name that's copyrighted by Universal. Luckily, a name itself cannot, technically, be copyrighted. The name has to be attached to something physical. (IE: Matt Groening is a copyrighted name as a signature though there are many people named Matt Groening. It is illegal to use the Simpson's creator's hand written signature as your own. Of course, even if it didn't have a copyright it would be illegal for more obvious reasons.)

In short, people are greedy and they know they are in the wrong. They just want to delay it as long as possible before the majority realizes this and puts a cap on it. Even then, they'll use their money to prolong it even further.

[ViRaL1]

The music and it's artists are the worst when it comes to throwing out legal suits for copyright. Next come the Production companies for movies. This is because they want every penny that comes from anything related to their ideas.

Although musical artists are quicker to move for legal action. I'd have to say that they have a little more justification than actors or movie studios. If you're an actor (with some exceptions of course), you haven't created a movie, you've just participated in it (some more than others) versus writing songs, making music and ultimately creating an album. Aside from that, most pre-premiere DVD/VCD movies are not nearly as widespread as bootleg CDs and MP3s. That said, your average actor, director has made the bulk of their money on a given project before it even hits the theaters. Musicians are much more reliant on CD sales than those involved with a movie are on DVD sales.

It is illegal to use the Simpson's creator's hand written signature as your own. Of course, even if it didn't have a copyright it would be illegal for more obvious reasons.

(Not if your name is Matt Groening)

[Doramius]

It is illegal to use the Simpson's creator's hand written signature as your own. Of course, even if it didn't have a copyright it would be illegal for more obvious reasons.

(Not if your name is Matt Groening)

Matt Groening, the creator of the Simpson's, copyrighted his actual signature as an artwork, so nobody can use his specific signature. The legal issues I was talking about were for forgery. No 2 matt Groening signatures would be identical and if you are Matt Groening trying to copy a different Matt Groening's signature, it's still forgery.

You're right when it comes down to the writing and creation of the music, there is a bit more to it, but if they did more concerts and attracted people and money that way, I'm sure you'd actually see who is the more popular artist. Paul McCartney had a few legal battles at first with Michael Jackson, but decided to drop them and just let things go after Michael bought the Beetle's copyrights. Paul was more upset about the distrust and behind the back dealings. Paul can still draw a crowd anywhere he puts up a concert. So can Michael Jackson. You'll find the largest pushers for legal actions are RAP artists and non-performing artists. Performance artists make a lot of money and they work for it. I've never been to a RAP artist's concert, and from what I hear most aren't anything really interesting or good. I know people that have said the artist or group sounds better on a bootleg DL burned to a disc.