[Dylan16807]

I believe that any restrictions added on top of copyright, for a normal media sale, are themselves immoral.

And I believe that sometimes copyright goes too far, and that breaking it in those cases is not immoral.

So I definitely don't agree with your first postulation, and I might not agree with the second one depending on how that's interpreted.

In particular, a rule that would stop me from watching a movie with friends should never be enforced or enforceable. So a flat-out "no sharing" is not a moral rule. And a rule that stops me from sharing the movie contents when copyright has lapsed is also immoral. I feel like the average person would solidly agree with me on those two statements.

And then on top of that, I suggest a situation where it would make sense for copyright to lapse without being immoral to the creators. And while under the current legal system it doesn't lapse, that's a legal truth that doesn't dictate the morality of acting like it lapsed.

[WendyTheWillow]

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]

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]

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]

> 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]

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]

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.