Why are you bringing up the law of free will?
Not talking about laws in that paragraph, read again.
Ethics don't change?
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.
A license states the creator-given set of usage permissions the consumer has regarding the content presented.
Except that I never agreed to those things.
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.