Why? Because the original owner of the product is is not fully informed and aware of the intent of the buyer. He does however state that he does not wish his product to be distributed for free. If you agree to do so, he will charge you a 'retail' price for the product. If you want to use it commercially, he will only agree to sell it to you for a commercial price or not sell it to you at all. Do note that he is the original owner. So if you break that agreement, you have committed fraud, the owner of the product is not well informed and you cannot say that he gave you the product with informed consent.
If he did not consent you to have the product for that price, why are you holding on to it? That is theft isn't it? i.e. to take an object from an owner without informed consent.
If I build a house and then sell it to a guy with a lovely family and then later he sells it to a murderous ****** psychopath can I sue the family guy?
Assuming that during the transfer of title deed, you have stated those conditions and that he has to inform the next buyer of the house with the same conditions. Your property will lose value though and you also need to fork out extra solicitor fees.
It is already present in the law. As I said, that DVD was stolen from you before you were born.
Ok, we need to print warning labels on CDs and DVDs now, just for jam because she's the only one who seems unaware that there are copyright laws.
jam, don't be an idiot. You might not like the current system (and I am with you on this) but that does not give you the right to rewrite the Merriam-Webster.
These words which you use, you learned them for free. In fact you are actively encouraged to learn them. The use of words is promoted as the ideal means of communicating what your brain perceives the universe as. Through words we share thoughts, solve puzzles and argue with one another.
Words are the underpinning centrepiece of society. Laws are made of words. Exchanges are established with words. Songs are sung with them and critiques expressed with them.
Words are labels. Words are free. Words are the great leveller.
Now excluding silly censorship such as 'The N Word' we are free to utilise words as we see fit. However, intellectual property people would love to charge me for saying 'I'm lovin it" or "Just do it" as they seem to think they have the authority on the use of these collection of words in their respective orders. You specifying the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary makes you a prime target for lawyers seeking exclusivity on who can represent that body of work or others competing with it. Are you actively belittling the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary or trying to establish it as the pinnacle of dictionaries?
This is exactly how the entertainment industry would like things to be. Whilst I can cite other bodies of work with lengthy quotes using the Harvard method I cannot sample a piece of music or incorporate video to the same ends. The DMCA prevents any assumption of fair use and tries to discourage people from doing what publishers actually want us to do - talk about their stuff.
Copyright laws can and will change. Whilst we will always have people who claim they don't know that coffee is hot we will have silly disclaimers. However the fundamental issue of 'fair use' and 'licensing' are merely mechanisms for greed and control and whichever way these greedy bastards try to deploy their goals they will ultimately be using words which they don't own, haven't created and disrespect as the ultimate gift from our forefathers.
I 'pirate' because that is what we do. Disagree? Find another means of communicating it to me which doesn't involve words at any level and doesn't break any laws.
Make no mistakes - this is a battlefront.