[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.

[WendyTheWillow]

You refuse to engage with how nearly all media is released today?

[Dylan16807]

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]

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.