5 ms·

If you believe that restrictions on use of property is immoral, then you necessarily do not believe in property rights. Either someone can dictate the terms in

If you believe that restrictions on use of property is immoral, then you necessarily do not believe in property rights. Either someone can dictate the terms in which other people use that thing, or they do not own that thing. That's fine, but it's not very compatible with capitalism.

Dylan16807 3y ago
Ahem. > 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. Ownership has restrictions, and ownership on ideas has the most restrictions. This is very compatible with capitalism.
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  Granted, however this doesn't solve your problem with ownership. Either a person can dictate the terms of how something is used (excepting "fair use" or whatever other exceptions apply) or they do not own that thing. No version of what you've said supplies sufficient exception to remove a person's ability to stipulate conditional use of a thing.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > Granted, however this doesn't solve your problem with ownership. Either a person can dictate the terms of how something is used (excepting "fair use" or whatever other exceptions apply) or they do not own that thing. Fair use is a whole category. And there's also public domain, eventually. I could definitely frame my suggestion, for downloading when purchase is unavailable, as a type of fair use or public domain, or something in between. If it's fair use, does that make it compatible with ownership? I think it's compatible with ownership. > No version of what you've said supplies sufficient exception to remove a person's ability to stipulate conditional use of a thing. Are you familiar with the first sale doctrine? You are largely not allowed to stipulate conditional use of media you are selling. You get the tools copyright gives you, and that's it.
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      There's no definition of "fair use" that would allow someone to agree not to share something, then deliberately break that agreement and have their action be moral. This goes beyond digital/physical goods, and beyond copyright. You give your word as part of the agreement of sale that you won't do something, except you then go and do that very thing. That is not a moral act.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Sorry, I added the part about first sale doctrine in an edit. It is a great concept, and it mostly blocks additional rules when selling books, movies, etc. You should not be able to ask for these things if you're selling a normal media product. Those restrictions are immoral.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        The right to distribute as granted by the first sale doctrine ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy. So you can torrent one seed's worth of a copyrighted work, then you must delete your copy. And it is not a moral act to agree to terms you believe are immoral and then deliberately break them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        First sale doctrine applies to the rights that are automatically transferred when you sell a copy. We're talking about the rights people get when they buy copies, aren't we? Aren't you implying a situation like someone buying a bluray and uploading it to the internet? > And it is not a moral act to agree to terms you believe are immoral and then deliberately break them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Mmmmm, I think it depends on how immoral the terms actually are.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Yes, sorry, I was wrong and have since edited. The first sale doctrine does not prevent someone from limiting the distribution of a work beyond that original copy, however. It only grants the right to sell, display, or otherwise dispose. It's not a blanket "owner can't stop you from doing anything" cover. And for our purposes, the consequences of not consuming a work does not rise to whatever level may be necessary for duplicity to be justified. Viewing a movie is almost never worth lying over, based on any cultural norms I'm familiar with.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Ahem. > 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. Ownership has restrictions, and ownership on ideas has the most restrictions. This is very compatible with capitalism.

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Granted, however this doesn't solve your problem with ownership. Either a person can dictate the terms of how something is used (excepting "fair use" or whatever other exceptions apply) or they do not own that thing. No version of what you've said supplies sufficient exception to remove a person's ability to stipulate conditional use of a thing.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > Granted, however this doesn't solve your problem with ownership. Either a person can dictate the terms of how something is used (excepting "fair use" or whatever other exceptions apply) or they do not own that thing. Fair use is a whole category. And there's also public domain, eventually. I could definitely frame my suggestion, for downloading when purchase is unavailable, as a type of fair use or public domain, or something in between. If it's fair use, does that make it compatible with ownership? I think it's compatible with ownership. > No version of what you've said supplies sufficient exception to remove a person's ability to stipulate conditional use of a thing. Are you familiar with the first sale doctrine? You are largely not allowed to stipulate conditional use of media you are selling. You get the tools copyright gives you, and that's it.
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    There's no definition of "fair use" that would allow someone to agree not to share something, then deliberately break that agreement and have their action be moral. This goes beyond digital/physical goods, and beyond copyright. You give your word as part of the agreement of sale that you won't do something, except you then go and do that very thing. That is not a moral act.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Sorry, I added the part about first sale doctrine in an edit. It is a great concept, and it mostly blocks additional rules when selling books, movies, etc. You should not be able to ask for these things if you're selling a normal media product. Those restrictions are immoral.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        The right to distribute as granted by the first sale doctrine ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy. So you can torrent one seed's worth of a copyrighted work, then you must delete your copy. And it is not a moral act to agree to terms you believe are immoral and then deliberately break them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        First sale doctrine applies to the rights that are automatically transferred when you sell a copy. We're talking about the rights people get when they buy copies, aren't we? Aren't you implying a situation like someone buying a bluray and uploading it to the internet? > And it is not a moral act to agree to terms you believe are immoral and then deliberately break them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Mmmmm, I think it depends on how immoral the terms actually are.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        Yes, sorry, I was wrong and have since edited. The first sale doctrine does not prevent someone from limiting the distribution of a work beyond that original copy, however. It only grants the right to sell, display, or otherwise dispose. It's not a blanket "owner can't stop you from doing anything" cover. And for our purposes, the consequences of not consuming a work does not rise to whatever level may be necessary for duplicity to be justified. Viewing a movie is almost never worth lying over, based on any cultural norms I'm familiar with.