What is wrong with using the word au****es.  In my post the word appears as au****ces
 

au****es really means "aus  pisses"
 

PC filter cut out the derogatory term for Hispanic.

Sort of makes you laugh about the filtering when you can use the words wanker and bastard.

Good for a laugh!  Kinda like the auto correct/ auto translation story that is going around Facebook pointing out how much trouble one can get in if they leave all of their trust in the hands of a digitally active system.

CakeAlexS
Sort of makes you laugh about the filtering when you can use the words wanker and bastard.

LOL... yeah... especially when there are letters on each end (which is often another word). Embarrassed doesn't come as embarr***ed either. Perhaps the person who scripted the filter has a chip on their shoulder.
 
Anyway, back to the OP... a lot of this also comes down to "money" as well. If you haven't made a nickel from something, you aren't a "prime target" to be sued anyway. There is so much material posted in high quality on YouTube (original works published NOT by the creator), that this almost makes me laugh.
 
As an even sadder aside... I talked to the US Patent office on a similar topic and simply asked "How many patent infringements do you have filed against China?" The response was "More than I could ever count!" If laws are not enforceable, stealing is "fair game," yet many companies actually produce patented property there not realizing the engineers who oversee this production simply walk to other factories to "share their knowledge" after work. Music and movies are both made available to everyone in China shortly after being released. Very sad, actually. (And yes, Intellectual Property rights are a pet peeve of mine.)

The thing about copyright is it's not just about the bucks, in fact that's not how it started but that's what it has become. Copyright is about giving the creator of the work the right to determine how it will be disseminated. When negotiating with a distributor or to sell the rights to a creative work, copyright ownership is the only element the creator can use as a basis of negotiation.
 
However, this means the creator also has the leeway to place works in the public domain or not enforce copyright. For example, ALL the schematic designs I've published over the years are legally considered as "dedicated to the public." That means that I chose not to pursue patenting or otherwise holding on to the rights. This is why you see my circuits in a bunch of products, many available commercially. None of these companies has a legal, moral, or ethical obligation to compensate me in any way, including giving me credit...although if you want to know who some of the good guys are in this industry, Steinberg and Peavey insisted on paying me to use one of my designs, iZotope asked for permission even though they didn't need it, Line 6 credited me for an effect I designed, and E-H will give me an effect if I want one as compensation. I don't abuse that offer, but I have asked for and received several E-H effects over the years. Several boutique pedal manufacturers also credit my designs even though they don't need to.
 
I've been told I'm owed tens of thousands of dollars of royalties from record companies who own the rights to music I've done, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. I do, however, have sympathy for the original creators of a work. Ideally, those are the people who copyright should be protecting.
 
 

mettelus
 (And yes, Intellectual Property rights are a pet peeve of mine.)

Would you agree there is no such thing as "Intellectual" property as all intellect is received from all prior intellect.  

cpkoch

mettelus
 (And yes, Intellectual Property rights are a pet peeve of mine.)

Would you agree there is no such thing as "Intellectual" property as all intellect is received from all prior intellect.  

Whether patent, copyright, or trademark, you have to show novelty or something transformative to claim intellectual property. A good example is a new chemical compound. All the chemicals needed to create the compound existed before, but if they're put together in a way that no one has done before, it can be protected.

cpkoch

mettelus
 (And yes, Intellectual Property rights are a pet peeve of mine.)

Would you agree there is no such thing as "Intellectual" property as all intellect is received from all prior intellect.  

1000% no.  Just because people are inspired by other people's creations that in no way devalues the time effort and money that they put into their own creations, or mean they shouldn't have a right to whatever proceeds might be earned from that effort.
 
While I certainly wouldn't argue that our current system is perfect, the basic idea of copyright is sound.  Would a movie studio invest hundreds of millions of dollars to make something without a hope of a return?  
 
And of course the MUCH smaller amount that I have invested in my own efforts is all in the probably vain hope that someday I will get some small return.  Some people might not want to ever earn anything, and that's their right.  But that doesn't mean they get to decide what's right for me.  When you take away intelletual property rights, you are stealing all the time and effort and money someone has put in to it.  IMHO, if's really no different than mugging somebody on the way home from cashing their weekly paycheck.  You are taking money out of their pocket.
 
Same of course applies to patents,  I do investing in bio-technology, billions are invested every year trying to cure this or that diseases, all that is made possible by intellectual property.
 
Sorry for the rant, but as a "musician" and also an economist, intellectual property is also something I feel very strongly about.