As it's often said in Spanish "tus derechos terminan donde comienzan los del otro". Your rights end where the other person's rights begin. You have the right to shoot your gun, but not if you're pointing it toward the little granny who is walking her dog. She has the right to live just as much.
Why are you bringing up the law of free will?
Juridical sciences use this balance to theorise about the creation of laws.
Why are you telling me this now?
I know you hate laws, think they're rules imposed by some gang who took up the government seat and tells you what to do regardless of your acceptance of it. That's why I don't ever say "because it's illegal" when I talk about right and wrong. Laws change, but the basis of ethics remains the same as it is discussed regardless of what governments choose.
You know I hate laws? That's ok, you don't know anything, clearly.
I avail myself of the law, but I have no business with Private Laws (statues, legislation, codes, mandates, orders, resolutions etc), but I never expressed that I hate them.
Ethics don't change? wasn't it considered ethical that you could whoop on your wife and spit on black people and earlier enjoy the benefits of slavery directly? Wasn't it ethical to go to work by 12 and get married at the same time if you're a girl, 100% of the time with someone that was at least twice your age?
Licenses are compromises first, then rules, then laws.
The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license
I make this under the condition that you will not do that with it. If I see you doing it, I will, by all means possible to me, try to stop you, and if I fail, I will consider you someone who broke the compromise and I will deny you all the benefits of my content as I see fit and take all measures of retaliation I can.
Except that I never agreed to those things. What then, simply extort my TANGIBLE property for using an INTANGIBLE thin, an abstraction?
Because that's what a license is, just the way you don't go and piss on a dead body in front of the family. It's may be a victimless crime, but there's a social compromise that we stick to when we make decisions.
The only social compromise that exists is limiting people's freedom of expression while compromising your values as an artist and creating art solely or the sake of profit, fame or richness and ignoring the logical compromise you need to make when you avail yourself of Licenses, Government-Granted-Monopoly.
Not talking about laws in that paragraph, read again.
Not what I said. I said that it remains the same AS IT IS DISCUSSED. This means that if there's an ongoing debate and a law passes where it's bad or good to do a certain thing, the ethics matter that is being debated remains in its same path. It doesn't suddenly switch its path because a random law was passed.
You're looking at a legal dictionary and wonder why "laws" and "government" and "authorities" are included? I said it's a compromise first because it comes before the legal part, so don't look at the legal dictionary, look at a general dictionary.
Source
A license states the creator-given set of usage permissions the consumer has regarding the content presented.
Websites have a certain license that says "If you use this website, you agree to this".
Softwares also have this license. "If you use this software, you agree to this".
You can obviously not agree with it and still read it by trespassing, but then you're breaking the social compromise of not trespassing where you're not welcome.
Yes but I'm not talking about legal licenses!!!!!odfjasodfnasdkf
There are licenses as compromises and licenses as legal notices. I'm talking about the first. That's why you don't use a legal dictionary to define it.
You mean the creator? Yeah, it would be unlawful and utterly absurd for anyone other than the creator to claim exclusive ownership and right to copy a piece of content.
You're talking about the US legal system here and I still don't understand why you consider state laws to be unheedable private laws. Good luck to you when you're dragged to court and you claim that the state's laws concerning copyright licenses don't concern you.