Reply to comment

The whole concept of copyright extension via licenses (EULA/ToS) needs to be re-examined by the courts. What it all boils down to is something called "software as a service". Something that the big players in the software and media industries want BADLY. For exmaple, the RIAA/MPAA would love nothing more than charging you for EVERY performance of a song/movie, and Microsoft has been pushing hard to make its OS/Office suite a "service" for which you pay a periodic subscription.

Licenses are becoming ridiculously complicated and full of all kinds of legal land mines. Almost NO one reads them, and they are hideously one-sided. It's the old "hide the eggs in the cereal" gimmick that capitalists have used since time immemorial. People have the expectation that when they plop down their hard-earned money for something in a box, ie, a PRODUCT, they can pretty much do whatever they want with it, within reasonable limits. It's not being marketed as a service, and there are no contract negotiations at the register (nor are the majority of license contracts presented to the consumer before purchase).

This ultimate does boil down to Copyright Law, and how companies are finding ways to exploit their userbase, and prevent any/all "fair use" possible to avoid seeing their "product" devalued in any way, shape, or form which is normally allowable under the law.

For a really good digest on the state and history of Copyright Law, read this article from Tim O'Reilly: http://news.oreilly.com/2008/08/how-copyright-got-to-its-curre.html