As an aside aside, an excellent example of a pyschopath/ sociopath is Hannibal Lecter, especially as seen in Silence of the Lambs. True pyschopaths are usually highly intelligent, but are lacking in empathy. This is why Lecter killed (and ate) his victims "and his heart rate never got above 84" (or whatever the quote is).

And, yes, the media uses this term for anyone who they consider "crazy".

Corporations can't be "psychopaths" since they're a corporation. ;)
However, too many companies are run by corporate lawyers who think the best marketing strategy is to sue, even if it means trashing the company's reputation.
And in the case of the RIAA, they believe the best plan is to legally extort money from their customers: the RIAA has told people that they can pay $3,500 for the RIAA to drop the case or else the RIAA will sue and the person will they'll have to pay for a lawyer, a legal defense, etc.
Anyway, back on the subject: in my conversations with TurboSquid, it seems that the admins are trying to protect customers from purchasing items (such as aircraft), only to find out that it wasn't properly "licensed".
They want to avoid a situation where someone makes a video and Lockheed (for example) finds out. The person may say he bought the "Military Attack Copter" (which has no copyrighted markings on it), but Lockheed may say it resembles their own helicopter too closely and that the merchant who made the product doesn't have permission from Lockheed to sell it.

What happens to the video? Is the person supposed to take it down? Can he get a refund from the merchant since he bought the product specifically for use in his video? Can the customer go after TS with some kind of claim about false advertising? In these days of anyone suing anyone for anything, who knows what could happen.

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions