[Dylan16807]

Again, that depends on what you think the purpose of copyright is.

If you consider public domain to be the default, then you do have an inherent right to consume content. The limitations placed on this right are done for a purpose, to promote more creation via sales. And if sales won't happen, then there's no reason for the copyright.

[WendyTheWillow]

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]

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]

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]

I used 50 thousand as the example number for a reason. At that point it's clearly public distribution.

[WendyTheWillow]

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]

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.