lud

They aren't selling the right to create (whatever that means) when working on a movie though. They aren't even selling the art.

It was never theirs to begin with.

They get paid to produce art and when they have done that their job is done. Nothing wrong with that. They sell their time and skill just like any other worker. It's not like electricians own parts of your home after they have worked on it.

If they want to keep the rights they should specify that in their contracts and probably work freelance or something.

Well the artists wouldn't be able to be artists if no one could buy their content.

I don't get why creative work should be treated like it's more important than non creative works.

An artist that works for companies sell their time and effort to create stuff the company wants. A factory worker sell their time and effort to create stuff the company wants.

Yes it's a shame some movies don't get released but it's not the end of the world.

Everyone involved still got paid and if someone is looking for anything more in their work they should start their own company.

no, you no longer control it. now someone else does by virtue of money

Yes the New York Times now controls it because they bought it with money from the owner/creator. That's usually how purchases and money work.

Then add some exceptions to cars that aren't as bad for the environment like electric cars.

Maybe exclude batteries for the weight calculation.

It isn't a hard problem to solve.

I don't think they are saying that the drivers are fat. Or at least it would be insane to say that society shouldn't care about the safety of fat people.

It's more likely that they said that the cars are fat which they are.

What about trying to reduce deaths?

Assuming that Wordle is copyrightable at all, why wouldn't copyright extend to clones? How far do you think copyright extend?

What would be the purpose of selling or buying the copyright if you can't stop the ones that are "stealing" it for free?

That implies that the creator should have control. And doesn't control imply the right to sell?

Obviously depends on the company but well run companies shouldn't have any problems unless they have very specialised machinery but those probably already run Win XP or some shit.

And no company should seriously expect free software support for the end of time.

Don't worry, not a single consumer will buy extended support. They won't even install crucial security updates to their computer without being forced to by Microsoft.

Steam isn't DRM. They offer a (very weak and basic) DRM for free for developers to use but they don't have too.

For a lot of games you can just install them using steam and then uninstall steam and the games will continue to work.

Good question. The website FAQ says that tidal can be used without a webserver but I have never tried it personally.