4 ms·

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 mo

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
        Right, I see your change to talk about a single upload. Well, the reason I mentioned first sale doctrine was because it puts massive restrictions on what the copyright owner is allowed to demand in a contract, not because it allows pirating in particular. Because my argument is that we could place a couple additional restrictions on copyright without violating the concept of ownership. It's already heavily restricted. A little bit more restriction wouldn't break things. And because it makes it far less likely they would try to ask for a direct no sharing promise, or that they would be allowed to ask for that. So the moral dilemma of lying won't be a problem.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        This would break digital ownership specifically, as you wouldn't be in control of their copies, which are trivial to make. Besides, you agreed not to do this! That's the immoral act. First sale doctrine or no, agreeing to not do something and then doing it is immoral.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > This would break digital ownership specifically, as you wouldn't be in control of their copies, which are trivial to make. Why is "people can copy it for critique" compatible with ownership, and "people can copy it after a certain number of years" compatible with ownership, but "people can copy it when you're done selling it, or in places you won't sell it" not compatible with ownership? I really don't understand. > Besides, you agreed not to do this! That's the immoral act. First sale doctrine or no, agreeing to not do something and then doing it is immoral. I don't think I've ever agreed to something like that on top of copyright. Are you applying this idea to existing media, or suggesting it would become the new normal? And I think first sale doctrine would get in the way of a contract clause that does almost but not quite the same thing that copyright does. But I'm not an expert there.

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
      Right, I see your change to talk about a single upload. Well, the reason I mentioned first sale doctrine was because it puts massive restrictions on what the copyright owner is allowed to demand in a contract, not because it allows pirating in particular. Because my argument is that we could place a couple additional restrictions on copyright without violating the concept of ownership. It's already heavily restricted. A little bit more restriction wouldn't break things. And because it makes it far less likely they would try to ask for a direct no sharing promise, or that they would be allowed to ask for that. So the moral dilemma of lying won't be a problem.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        This would break digital ownership specifically, as you wouldn't be in control of their copies, which are trivial to make. Besides, you agreed not to do this! That's the immoral act. First sale doctrine or no, agreeing to not do something and then doing it is immoral.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > This would break digital ownership specifically, as you wouldn't be in control of their copies, which are trivial to make. Why is "people can copy it for critique" compatible with ownership, and "people can copy it after a certain number of years" compatible with ownership, but "people can copy it when you're done selling it, or in places you won't sell it" not compatible with ownership? I really don't understand. > Besides, you agreed not to do this! That's the immoral act. First sale doctrine or no, agreeing to not do something and then doing it is immoral. I don't think I've ever agreed to something like that on top of copyright. Are you applying this idea to existing media, or suggesting it would become the new normal? And I think first sale doctrine would get in the way of a contract clause that does almost but not quite the same thing that copyright does. But I'm not an expert there.