4 ms·

That should be the default assumption. It's restrictions which require justification in a liberal society, not freedoms.

Planktonne 1y ago
"Everyone has to share everything" is a restriction, not a freedom.
- tmtvl 1y ago
  Where did that come from? 'You aren't allowed to prevent others from sharing this thing' is completely different from 'you have to share this thing'. 'Everyone is allowed to share everything' is a freedom, not a restriction. Whether or not it's a freedom people should have is a difficult question to answer because we don't know what the modern world would be like without copyright (I expect creators would try and get paid for creating more works so it might look like how nowadays some shows end in cliffhangers to give the creators some leverage over the publishers to say 'look, people want to know what comes next, maybe you should let us do another season').
  - Planktonne 1y ago
    People have always been allowed to share their own things; what you're demanding is the sharing of other people's things. It's not piracy if the owner chooses to share.
    - 1gn15 1y ago
      People are not allowed to share the copies they possess. That's the restriction.
II2II 1y ago
Freedoms are a balancing of rights between two or more parties, and are never absolute. Complicating the matter futher: it is very unlikely that all parties are going to agree what that balancing of rights looks like. For example, someone who shares knowledge (e.g. a teacher) is going to have a very different perspective on copyright law than a person who sells knowlege (e.g. a publisher).
- vintermann 1y ago
  Yeah yeah, but the one I replied to couldn't understand why people felt entitled to see something just because it exists. I can totally understand that, it just means they don't buy the various excuses for why they shouldn't be allowed to. I wouldn't either, in most "lost media" cases.

Planktonne 1y ago

"Everyone has to share everything" is a restriction, not a freedom.

tmtvl 1y ago
Where did that come from? 'You aren't allowed to prevent others from sharing this thing' is completely different from 'you have to share this thing'. 'Everyone is allowed to share everything' is a freedom, not a restriction. Whether or not it's a freedom people should have is a difficult question to answer because we don't know what the modern world would be like without copyright (I expect creators would try and get paid for creating more works so it might look like how nowadays some shows end in cliffhangers to give the creators some leverage over the publishers to say 'look, people want to know what comes next, maybe you should let us do another season').
- Planktonne 1y ago
  People have always been allowed to share their own things; what you're demanding is the sharing of other people's things. It's not piracy if the owner chooses to share.
  - 1gn15 1y ago
    People are not allowed to share the copies they possess. That's the restriction.

II2II 1y ago

Freedoms are a balancing of rights between two or more parties, and are never absolute. Complicating the matter futher: it is very unlikely that all parties are going to agree what that balancing of rights looks like. For example, someone who shares knowledge (e.g. a teacher) is going to have a very different perspective on copyright law than a person who sells knowlege (e.g. a publisher).

vintermann 1y ago
Yeah yeah, but the one I replied to couldn't understand why people felt entitled to see something just because it exists. I can totally understand that, it just means they don't buy the various excuses for why they shouldn't be allowed to. I wouldn't either, in most "lost media" cases.