COPYRIGHT LAW-- Rent on software destroys value

The case is made by an expert on this matter, that software is legitimately rented. To wit--

QUOTE
It is psychologically tempting for end-users to think they actually own a copy of software, especially when it is delivered to them on physical media. But all they have is permission from the owner(s), through a license, to have a copy of the information, and to read it or have a machine read it. People talk in a colloquial manner about owning a copy of some software that they paid a license for.
UNQUOTE
Source-- [+]

My comment-- I "bought" a Mac software for writing music on a computer using my piano. The software was automatically disabled after 4 months at which time I was asked to pay more money for continued access. Apparently, the Mac people installed a "timer" on my software (timeware?) that shuts it down at a predetermined time (?!)-- forcing me to pay more "rent" on something I clearly "bought". I refuse to update this way and will continue to use pen and paper. [expletive] them! {Expletive that calls them a name asosciated with part of human anatomy]. Copyright "law" involves something called "intellectual property" which is, in my view, a subversion of the idea of "property". Property of which "information based copies" can be made is not "property" in any meaningful sense of the word-- because real "property" involves "physical matter" of which cannot be "replicated" and of which one exists. That's the fundamental notion of "property". Any "activist" in "copyright" law is going to have to go back the "drawing baord of the real universe"-- otherwise most people use simply use their "hard property" like pencil, pencil sharpener and piece of paper to do what the "stupid computer industry" wants to [expletive] extract from us. [expletive] that. [I'll link a forum discussion here if anyone starts a thread there on this topic. See the top of this blog for a link to the forum]