For the same reason that you get it, when it comes to your own works.

A lot of franchise-oriented work these days takes longer than 14 years to even wrap up, as a series/format. There's no reason that someone deciding to risk tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and untold thousands of man-hours on a project that they hope will launch another Potter/Star Wars/Trek/Marvel/Whatever franchise wouldn't be thinking in terms of the work still paying back that risk for fifteen, or twenty years. And why shouldn't they? Playing long ball with creative franchises is perfectly reasonable, if you can get your investors to look at it that way, too.

Because if the breathless crap being fretted about were actually to come to pass, it would be a huge pain in the ass to everyone who actually creates things for a living.

No. If you don't have the work registered, you can only go for the injunction, and for your customary rates/invoicing on the work in question. What having the work registered does is allow you to take the infringement case to federal court, and to seek punitive damages.

Yeah, it sucks to get hated for encouraging clear communication in public, doesn't it? Probably not as much as it sucks to be you, when that's all you've got, above. What a shallow, pathetic existence. But hey, if hating someone is your only outlet, and that's the limit to your ability to express yourself, I guess it's good to know your limits.

But it IS your responsibility to not rip people off, or to tolerate other people doing so. Especially if you personally like the output of artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and others who - without copyrights on their creations - wouldn't bother to create what you like.

So what you're saying is that you, just like the headline writer, don't actually understand what the word means.

No, I complained that the word was used incorrectly, and that an editor chose to do so in a headline - the most visible place here in which to do so.

Here's the primary definition of Aggravate:

People with a working vocabulary have been making the distinction between an irritation and an aggravated irritation for a long time. As in, "The child scratched at the irritating wound, which aggravated the injury."

The only way in which it makes sense to use "aggravating" in the context of a certification test (as in the OP), is to say something like, "He was in a bad mood from his morning car accident, and the annoyance of having to take a pointless certification test aggravated his already foul disposition."

The only person unfamiliar with this long-standing use and construction is you. Paid editors running headlines on widely read web sites, though, should be ahead of you on this - and they weren't in this case. Simple as that.

Which is exactly why referendum votes are usually such a terrible idea. Because most people lack the information and critical thinking skills to vote wisely. The same people you think would sweep away copyright laws would then be wondering why nobody is making them any movies beyond the generally crappy garage-level indie dreck that can scrape up some family and gofundme me cash. They'd wonder why their favorite musicians would be charging $400 for a concert ticket, and no longer laboring to make complex recordings that involve months of work, dozens of studio musicians and the like. They'd wonder why their favorite authors would stop writing books that involve the investment of years of their lives ... because they're too busy trying to pay their bills doing paid short story readings at Barnes & Noble. Of course B&N would be out of business, so that wouldn't actually happen.

"Paid for the law?" The concept has been in place since the founding of the country, because the people who chartered the nation recognized the essential role that copyrights play in protecting a vital area of work. Because most voters couldn't even tell you what the Bill of Rights is, don't lecture about how meaningful a simple referendum would be, in this regard.

So your plan for fixing copyright is to rip off the artists you pretend to like. That's one rock-solid set of philosophical premises you're working with there.

There should be a certification in the use of the English language. Like, maybe a high school diploma or something like that.

Getting a certification may indeed be annoying, or irritating, or bothersome, or troubling, or tiring ... and then something else about the process might aggravate (make worse) the bad experience. Sure, it's fairly obvious that the headline writer is trying to say something other than that a bad thing was aggravated by something else ... but, can we at least, when editing the headlines, at least try to throw the darts at a group of words that actually make some contextual sense? This is right up there with the "certifications are ten times less useful" style phrasing. Just EDIT like you mean it, editors. Please? Why dumb things down when you don't have to? None of these words are on sale. It's not more profitable for Dice to hold off on using seemingly more expensive words like "irritating."

Ah, I see. So it's not quite the way YOU like, so that's your excuse for ripping off whatever you want. You're what ... 12? 14? Definitely spoken like someone who's never created anything in your life.

Really? That's your approach to this? Yet another young guy trying to find a way to get rich by setting up a system built from the ground up to infringe on others' copyrights, and which gave laughable lip service to take-down notices (ripped off material that was removed re-appeared more or less instantly). Foul play? The foul play was on his part, and of course the chickens came home to roost, which is why he gave up on the scheme. Whether or how yet another failure of a Piracy-As-A-Service "start-up" might have contributed to his death remains to be seen.

So, please detail what's illegal about anything being discussed. The article doesn't talk about them going after you or your network. This is about providing tools to those that need tools. Your complaint, if it becomes legitimate, is only meaningful when someone who's not armed with a warrant or in the middle of conducting operations against (for example) a group like ISIS decides to use the technology outside of a legal context.

Your silly rhetorical question is like asking why the people who make very nice chef's knives aren't in jail for murder, because someone decided to use one illegally in order to kill somebody else.

Whatever philosophical point you hope to make is lost in the dust you kick up when you shout half-baked things in such a shrill manner. Should the people who run Glock be in jail because police are armed with their weapons and, despite using them every day to protect themselves and other people, one of them mis-uses a Glock-made weapon? Are you really listening to yourself?

Read another piece yesterday that mentioned the find in question here was of a very, very close cousin to the good ol' Velociraptor. The conclusion there was that the Velociraptor was likely feathered as well, and not likely to look much like the leather/scaley beasts from the movies (and, um, they weren't that big, either, apparently).

Because I'm pointing out that he's being whiny and irrational in his complaint that Reddit isn't being "fair" in having an editorial policy related to how they run their own web site. His complaint: it's isn't right for people to be able to run their own web sites as they see fit. My complaint: that his complaint is without merit, and is in fact a symptom of a great deal of what's wrong with contemporary society, vis-a-vis the Gimme Dat lefty entitlement culture. See the difference? He thinks someone else should be force to do what he wants so he doesn't have to go to any trouble himself. I think he should admit that his complaint essentially calls for others to be forced to be his web publishing slave labor.

Right. Except the whiners are couching the discussion in terms of "free speech" being impact by Reddit's having an editorial policy. That gives it all away: the people who skew the discussion that way have absolutely no idea what freedom actually is.