[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.

[WendyTheWillow]

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]

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]

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]

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.