Wait, so if I ripped off someone's IP in the corporate arena when they hadn't done anything with it for a while, you think that's ok?
Again, you're confusing my words here and it's getting annoying. I'm saying that if it's still a valuable commodity that you are actively using to make money or you are holding an asset worth money for future development, then yes, you have every right to it and should protect your rights to it. However, there is a world of difference between a valuable IP not being used until the company wants to develop it and a game that's been discontinued for 15 years and whose company is gone.
Are you fucking retarded? IP is a fucking asset, you moron. Companies (especially companies in the tech space) have vaults full of patents and copyrights and other IP, and this appears on their balance sheet... and you're saying they don't REALLY own it if YOU PERSONALLY don't think they're using it?
Fuck fuck fuckity fuck there I think we're even on the fucks. Now, I am NOT saying that just because a company hasn't used it, it automatically falls into the public domain. What I AM saying is that if you know, for certainty, that a product will never be used again, and you have a use for it for no monetary gain, then it should be no problem. Are you going to sit here and say that Windows 3.1's source code should be locked in a vault for the rest of eternity just because Microsoft owns it? What if a professor wanted to use it to show how early OS worked? Microsoft doesn't earn a dime for it anymore and never will.
Seriously, when did property rights become about what YOU wanted, and not what the owner wanted?
When the owner stopped giving a flying fuck and gave up on it.
PROTIP retard, I compared a specific example of media (and a very new one with broad monetisation and licencing happening right now) to a fucking WORD that has been co-opted by culture. If you are seriously equating them, you're a fucking idiot.
Is "Fucking Idiot" your favorite word? It's really annoying. As far as your specific example of media, you're missing the point! I was showing how they're claiming that the product's name itself gives them permission to control the culture that uses it. In no way shape or form was I claiming that the word was copyright infringement, but it was treated that way.
Do you know why Adobe tried to stop people using 'photoshop' as a verb? Because of this very phenomena! As Bakustra says, to retain rights you must exercise them, and if you want to continue to own a trademark you need to make sure it is used in the sense you own it and isn't diluted into regular use, or you'll lose it. This is in no way comparable to pirating some TV show just because you couldn't find it at the shop.
Are you serious? Think about why that's stupid for a moment... when someone says "Hold on while I google it" do you think an executive at Google freaks out? Having your name out there so that it's so common people automatically know of it IS A GOOD THING! I heard the expression "You could be selling five dollar bills for a nickel but unless they know about it, it's not worth a thing". Culture is something that changes constantly, but being able to, even for the briefest time, have people saying your name and automatically know what your product is NEVER HURTS!
I'm not saying the companies don't have rights, but they must also realize they have limits without becoming ridiculous to the point of insanity. Your definition of rights seems to have even daring to say the names of companies worthy of a lawsuit and jailtime. So if I said Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Walmart, Sony or Viacom, I'm now going to jail and never seeing the light of day again.