Or maybe it could be viewed as a work for hire. Then of course the copyright would be yours.

With all the streaming out there however, you can get by listening to what you want for the most part.

Exactly this. Most of the time at work and when driving for more that 10 min. I have Pandora streaming. I hear a lot of bands that I'd have never heard before. Then I often (gasp) buy their music later.

This is why I don't understand why the "music industry" is so against streaming services. It's a hell of a way to get the acts they're not pushing sales up without taking air time away from their golden children.

My calendar, and contacts have been synced between different computers, and devices for the last few years via iMac/MobileMe. Never had to hook one up to the other for that.

Thank you for saving me from playing the pedantic ass.

Maybe it's me, maybe it's who ever wrote the summary pulling something out his ass. But I don't think I've ever played a song with a I-III-IV progression.
Then again I play blues and country which tend to be different variations of I-IV-V.

So I invested a lot of money in student loans and want to make some money back now. Therefore you owe me money right?

If I use you, and the knowledge you acquired while studying by hiring you? Then yes.

For sitting on your ass eating cheetos? Then no.

Wow. You mean you've never watched a movie that made you feel something? Or one that made you think, or contemplate a moral dilemma?

I'm an avid reader, but that doesn't preclude me from enjoying a film, or having one make me think.

Just as you can say that a lot of movies are just candy. Most books that are published are more for entertainment as well. Even so if you're a visual person, the way that dark spooky wood is shown can give the viewer the same satisfaction that a well written paragraph can.

They are merely different mediums which can convey the same thoughts, and emotions in their own way. Neither is inherently better than the other.

a reliance party may continue to exploit that derivative work for the duration of the restored copyright if the reliance party pays to the owner of the restored copyright reasonable compensation . . .

Whoa, wait, what? Is it just because I haven't had any coffee yet? Or does that say that someone who created a work based on something that was public domain when it was created, would have to start paying the new rights holder after copyright is restored?

That seems to fly in the face of Ex-post Facto to me, rather than display how it doesn't interfere with it.
Sigh...

Thanks for adding the on-topic bit. I'd forgotten what the article was about.

Hell, I saw it on ESPN Monday, or Tuesday.

To paraphrase "A Fish Called Wanda"

Otto: Apes don't read physics books.
Wanda: Yes they do Otto, they just don't understand them!

I want them to make Polyphonic stop asking me 4 f'ing times if want want to login to PSN before letting me into GT5.

The first engineering company I worked at there was a group of 8-10 of us in the drafting department (mid 80's so real drafting with pens, velum, and drafting tables) who brown bagged our lunches. None of us really had similar outside interests. But every day we'd sit around a big round table and play Uno as we ate.

We didn't talk about work. We made fun of each other and joked around, and no one thought twice about slapping their immediate supervisor with a "draw 4" card.

Then you understand wrong. The place where you buy a car is a dealership.

In the case of an auto shop, shop doesn't mean a place to buy, it means a place to work on stuff.

Really. I mean it's not like opening day of a movie based on a comic book or anything.