[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.

[WendyTheWillow]

This would break digital ownership specifically, as you wouldn't be in control of their copies, which are trivial to make.

Besides, you agreed not to do this! That's the immoral act. First sale doctrine or no, agreeing to not do something and then doing it is immoral.

[Dylan16807]

> This would break digital ownership specifically, as you wouldn't be in control of their copies, which are trivial to make.

Why is "people can copy it for critique" compatible with ownership, and "people can copy it after a certain number of years" compatible with ownership, but "people can copy it when you're done selling it, or in places you won't sell it" not compatible with ownership?

I really don't understand.

> Besides, you agreed not to do this! That's the immoral act. First sale doctrine or no, agreeing to not do something and then doing it is immoral.

I don't think I've ever agreed to something like that on top of copyright.

Are you applying this idea to existing media, or suggesting it would become the new normal?

And I think first sale doctrine would get in the way of a contract clause that does almost but not quite the same thing that copyright does. But I'm not an expert there.

[WendyTheWillow]

You agree to these terms when you purchase any media, as these terms are codified in US copyright law.

If you buy media, thus agreeing to US copyright law, and then violate it, how is this a moral act?

But again, setting aside US copyright law, how would it be a moral act to agree to something and then act in opposition to that agreement (given the low stakes of what's involved here)?