rights vs preservation

[JetRacer]

@ abbub: Wrong. In the states legislation, pathents, etc. is bought and payed for, literally. The pathents office don't even bother pretending anymore; pay fee, get pathent for natural birth (ca-ching). When it comes to copyright/pathents/IP legislation it's more of a shady buissness with campaign contributions and such. But it's still a (political) buissness and not a legislation process propelled by the legal community itself.

Which would all be ok if it was a local phenomena that didn't spread like a *censored* cancer. Which is a problem since IP is essentially thought control and therefore not valid outside the US. Or would have been so if it wasn't for the fact that local law is overuled by international treaties.

That's why we have pathent/copyright/IP for-life-and-beyond legislation right now.

[JetRacer]

@ freqmax: "don't have moral values. Only humans do.". Good point.

Don't care for company; company doesn't care for you. And don't confuse the company for the people in it - they're all interchangable while the company remains. Mail your resumé to competitors on steady intervals. If you suddenly find you don't like your job anymore then switch seats before you get thrown out together with a few hundred (or thousand) others.

[JetRacer]

@ persia: you're confusing publication copyright with a composers right to his work. It's not the same thing; everything regarding music industry is placed in a separate set of legislation. There's also something going on with international treaties in that mess aswell.

Copyright is the god-ruler of all laws. It's the most powerfull legislation on earth. Whoever holds copyright can deside exactly what to do with the copyrighted material.

People often think that licenses applies to or binds the copyright holder in some way; not so. A copyright holder can distribute identical copies under any number of licenses, change licenses at will, prohibit any single person, group or corporation from ever touching or distributing the copyrighted material. Licenses is a way to automate distribution rights so the copyright holder doesn't have to sign a million consents. If a buissness looses money due to a copyright holders bad behavior then the copryright owner can be successfully sued.

When a copyright holder say "jump", then people jump. Then he/she have to face the music if it doesn't fly in court.

[JetRacer]

@ abbub: this part "fundamentally broken".

I replied they're not "broken" just bought and payed for. They were designed the way they work rather than deteriorating to their current state.

[JetRacer]

@ ChuckT: the point was kinda that such a password essentially would die with the company.

The trend goes towards the companies still owning the physical product and the customer is merely "lending" or licensing it until the day they die - with no right to 2:hand nor enherit it.

Quite frankly: if they could make money off our carcasses in a legal way then humanity would be hunted towards extinction.

I can tell you think people within a company have something to say about how a company behaves or can let their personal morals have an impact on how they do buissness. They don't. The executive is held in a leash by a board and the board answers to stockholders who answers to no-one and feels no moral obligations whatsoever, except for their account balance. They (stockholders) get together and say get cheaper laybour (read: next step down is exploiting the workers in the 3:rd world) like everyone else or we take our investments elsewhere". The board hear the whip crack and then they swing their whip towards the exec and the exec either takes the desition or walks.

Buissness with the big boys 101. We'd like to think that's not the case in Europe (or Asia for that matter) - but in contruary this is a global phenomena.

The root to the problem is usually a military-strategical one: buissness is of national interest and therefore buissness is above the law. Like when a highway or nuclear plant is forced through the legislation system and built under massive public protests.

[JetRacer]

@ kamiga: well, in that perticular case the music industry have painted itself into a corner where you have the right to unlimited replacements and an obligation to give you a free pirate-protection-free cd if you claim the original didn't play. And the law holds them in a very short leash in this matter. And usually personal-use overule in court (US milage may vary).

Even the music industry realize what morons they were and stopped their anti-piracy protection schemes long ago. But every now and again some record label is blessed with a new idiot CEO presenting a new scheme that he claims will work 100% - until it actually hits the market and inevitably fails. Usually when 50cent thinks it's so pesky that his expensive Alpine multimedia system won't play the disc and the label is once again forced to distribute free unprotected versions.