4 ms·

This doesn't account for the fact that someone can hold a copyright (or a physical item) and decide not to sell it at all. After all, they either hold the righ

This doesn't account for the fact that someone can hold a copyright (or a physical item) and decide not to sell it at all. After all, they either hold the rights to it or they don't. It's not only theirs if they manage it "well".

Dylan16807 3y ago
It doesn't really account for that, true. But copyright isn't the only control. If you've never distributed something, that generally falls under basic privacy. But if you've already put 50 thousand copies out into the world, it should stay available in some reasonable form.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Why? Why do you lose rights to something when you share it, even if everyone you share it with agrees not to also share it?
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I used 50 thousand as the example number for a reason. At that point it's clearly public distribution.
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      Nope, each and every one of those 50k agreed not to share your content publicly. You wouldn't have let them see what you made if they hadn't!
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        I refuse to engage with such an unrealistic scenario. Except to say that's still enough people to count as public in my book. If you want to talk about something more realistic, I'm game.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        You refuse to engage with how nearly all media is released today?
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        You're talking about copyright as that agreement? Not a personal promise not to share things? In that case, then I don't comprehend your "nope" at all. Mass market sales are public distribution.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Nope, I'm talking about the agreement you consent to when you purchase access to media. Mass market sales are not a public distribution, just a wide distribution. You must agree to the terms of the sale in order to access the media. You give your word you will not violate those terms, when you purchase it. Morally speaking, either you believe someone can control their property, or you don't believe that. Sometimes that control involves letting many, but not all, people access that property. If you believe media moves out of someone's control without their consent merely through distribution, then you necessarily do not believe in ownership. Which is fine, but there is no quasi-ownership concept. Either a person owns and thus controls something, or they do not. Besides, does private property become "public" just because millions of people go there? Does a rental car suddenly become public property once it's passed 100 renters? This concept cannot exist alongside ownership.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > You must agree to the terms of the sale in order to access the media. Plenty of media doesn't have terms, it just has default copyright. And that's a good thing. > Morally speaking, either you believe someone can control their property, or you don't believe that. Sometimes that control involves letting many, but not all, people access that property. If you believe media moves out of someone's control without their consent merely through distribution, then you necessarily do not believe in ownership. Without their consent? Of course not. They have to consent to the distribution. I believe in limited ownership for ideas. I'll mention the public domain again, because you haven't addressed that. If you make a movie, eventually it's going to become owned by the public. That's not negotiable. > Either a person owns and thus controls something, or they do not. Fair use is also a restriction on the ownership. A big one. So if it's this simple, then "they do not" must be the correct answer for how the world already works. > go there, rental car Those are physical items. They don't act like IP. If we apply physical rules to IP, then anyone can copy anything because it doesn't affect the original.

Dylan16807 3y ago

It doesn't really account for that, true. But copyright isn't the only control. If you've never distributed something, that generally falls under basic privacy. But if you've already put 50 thousand copies out into the world, it should stay available in some reasonable form.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Why? Why do you lose rights to something when you share it, even if everyone you share it with agrees not to also share it?
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I used 50 thousand as the example number for a reason. At that point it's clearly public distribution.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    Nope, each and every one of those 50k agreed not to share your content publicly. You wouldn't have let them see what you made if they hadn't!
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      I refuse to engage with such an unrealistic scenario. Except to say that's still enough people to count as public in my book. If you want to talk about something more realistic, I'm game.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        You refuse to engage with how nearly all media is released today?
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        You're talking about copyright as that agreement? Not a personal promise not to share things? In that case, then I don't comprehend your "nope" at all. Mass market sales are public distribution.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Nope, I'm talking about the agreement you consent to when you purchase access to media. Mass market sales are not a public distribution, just a wide distribution. You must agree to the terms of the sale in order to access the media. You give your word you will not violate those terms, when you purchase it. Morally speaking, either you believe someone can control their property, or you don't believe that. Sometimes that control involves letting many, but not all, people access that property. If you believe media moves out of someone's control without their consent merely through distribution, then you necessarily do not believe in ownership. Which is fine, but there is no quasi-ownership concept. Either a person owns and thus controls something, or they do not. Besides, does private property become "public" just because millions of people go there? Does a rental car suddenly become public property once it's passed 100 renters? This concept cannot exist alongside ownership.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > You must agree to the terms of the sale in order to access the media. Plenty of media doesn't have terms, it just has default copyright. And that's a good thing. > Morally speaking, either you believe someone can control their property, or you don't believe that. Sometimes that control involves letting many, but not all, people access that property. If you believe media moves out of someone's control without their consent merely through distribution, then you necessarily do not believe in ownership. Without their consent? Of course not. They have to consent to the distribution. I believe in limited ownership for ideas. I'll mention the public domain again, because you haven't addressed that. If you make a movie, eventually it's going to become owned by the public. That's not negotiable. > Either a person owns and thus controls something, or they do not. Fair use is also a restriction on the ownership. A big one. So if it's this simple, then "they do not" must be the correct answer for how the world already works. > go there, rental car Those are physical items. They don't act like IP. If we apply physical rules to IP, then anyone can copy anything because it doesn't affect the original.