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.
Not talking about laws in that paragraph, read again.
That is clearly the Law of Free Will. Look it up.
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.
Why not? You think that the legal definition of licenses doesn't apply to a legal concept? A maxim of law states that The Meaning Of Words is the Spirit of Law. If you understand what Permission means then you would have recognized that the legal definition is the most complete and clear definition. Another maxim of law is "He who considers merely the letter of an instrument goes but skin deep into its meaning." What context is the second definition devoid of "freedom of action" when where, why and how?
A license states the creator-given set of usage permissions the consumer has regarding the content presented.
I already know what a license is, and you don't want to acknowledge that by definition and function it's "permitting" people to do what is otherwise both Unlawful (Claiming exclusivity over ideas) and illegal (Exclusive Right to copy) that's your prerogative.
Websites have a certain license that says "If you use this website, you agree to this".
And the law has come clearly from that: there is no IMPLIED consent, only explicit, completely informed and explicit conscious desire to consent.
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.
Except that you won't find a jury of 12 to even hear your case. Good luck wasting your time on LICENSES fees with the copyright office because even if you try to bring a Sovereign to court they will laugh at you from the land, and thumb all your Private Laws.
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.