Years after completely ditching the system, WotC makes their move!

[Raven Crowking]

Can't wait so see this headline:

"This just in: McDonald's removal of McRib from menus called 'immoral' and 'unethical'...Film at 11."

(Shrug)

If WotC-D&D is a McRib to you, I suppose I can see the comparison.

However, it is a pretty poor analogy, because no one is suggesting that WotC cannot stop selling Mc3rd, but rather that, once WotC has decided to do so, trying to stop others from providing related content may be unethical. This is at least in part because of the perceived longterm value of Mc3rd when it was purchased, and the promotion by WotC of those resources that led to that perception (by some).

I would personally say that the current term to which IP is held is too long, and it promotes stagnation over innovation as a result. This view holds no water with Mc3rd, but it might relate to Mc1st and earlier. A healthy public domain is, IMHO, a sign of a healthy public. YMMV.


RC


EDIT: And billd91's "the nerdrage over this is incandescent in its stupidity and futility" is a statement that can be used to example more than one fallacy. But, I suppose, that is easier than answering the actual argument.


RC

 

[Androrc]

Agreed 100%.

As a business, their first duty is to make money within the legal strictures of the society in which they operate. They have duties to their owners & shareholders.

I'm all for businesses profiting, usually everyone is better off that way. However, if they take decisions that harm the common good, then they are being immoral. They can legally do what they have, but there is public rejection of their moves precisely because such moves are and feel unethical, and petty.

There is absolutely zero moral duty for any business to release or continue to offer a product into the stream of commerce that does not positively save lives. IOW, while you might have a case if WotC were the world's sole supplier of seatbelts and flu vaccines, you have nothing upon which to base calling the control of sales of a pure luxury item immoral. That's pure nonsense.

Assuming no discrimination, your right to experience pleasure isn't EVER going to trump their right not to sell to you- that's a complete non-starter.

Or to put it a different way, you have no moral right to someone else's stuff.

Once they put it out in the world, it belongs to everyone. They have only the right to profit from their work, and their IP. But having control over whether or not making it available, as currently they legally do, is a moral abuse against society, and the free flow of information.

(Shrug)

If WotC-D&D is a McRib to you, I suppose I can see the comparison.

However, it is a pretty poor analogy, because no one is suggesting that WotC cannot stop selling Mc3rd, but rather that, once WotC has decided to do so, trying to stop others from providing related content may be unethical. This is at least in part because of the perceived longterm value of Mc3rd when it was purchased, and the promotion by WotC of those resources that led to that perception (by some).

I would personally say that the current term to which IP is held is too long, and it promotes stagnation over innovation as a result. This view holds no water with Mc3rd, but it might relate to Mc1st and earlier. A healthy public domain is, IMHO, a sign of a healthy public. YMMV.


RC

I disagree partially. I think there are problems with how IP works currently, but I don't think that the problems stem from the term being too long. The problems are rather that companies have too much control over IPs, being able to shut down initiatives of third parties, and depriving people of the availability of their products. Ideally, they would be able to impose royalties on creative work based on their IPs, as well as necessarily gaining a share of profits from publication of their works, but wouldn't be able to stop people doing creative work on their IPs or others from publishing their works.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I disagree partially. I think there are problems with how IP works currently, but I don't think that the problems stem from the term being too long. The problems are rather that companies have too much control over IPs, being able to shut down initiatives of third parties, and depriving people of the availability of their products. Ideally, they would be able to impose royalties on creative work based on their IPs, as well as necessarily gaining a share of profits from publication of their works, but wouldn't be able to stop people doing creative work on their IPs or others from publishing their works.

Well, here we disagree to some extent.

The existence of IP is to promote a reasonable gain for money spent in innovation, because innovation benefits society. The term is intended to grant the IP creator long enough to make a reasonable profit from his/her/their work. This profit is the incentive to invest in doing the work in the first place.

It is true, however, that both term and scope of control over IP has increased in ways that are certainly profitable to the IP holders, but not necessarily beneficial to (and perhaps harmful to) society.

Ethical =/= Legal.

It is always hoped that what is legal will be informed by what is ethical, but attempts to make the two terms synonymous would damage society enormously. This is especially true because there is no objective way to determine what is, or is not, ethical (despite what seem to be claims to the contrary in this thread).

Attempting to force others to conform to what you view as ethical is......well, not always ethical. IMHO, anyway. There is a fuzzy line that has to be drawn somewhere.

Attempting to urge others to take what you view as ethical action, though, or not take an action you view as deeply unethical, is probably as close to an "objective" moral obligation as I can imagine. Well, accept practicing the same before preaching it, anyway.



RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm all for businesses profiting, usually everyone is better off that way. However, if they take decisions that harm the common good, then they are being immoral.

RPGs are a luxury. It's nice they exist, but if they vanished tomorrow, people would still find food, shelter and, amazingly, other forms of entertainment.

They are NOT harming the public good by removing their products from the market. Indeed, one of the cornerstone rights of property ownership of any kind is the right to restrict access. This enables the owner to set a price, and thus, establish a market. If the price is too high, it may not sell; if no price is set, no third party has the right to then strip the property owner of his right (except in the recognized area of necessities to survival).

Once they put it out in the world, it belongs to everyone. They have only the right to profit from their work, and their IP. But having control over whether or not making it available, as currently they legally do, is a moral abuse against society, and the free flow of information.

Absolutely and unequivocally no. As stated above, the restriction of access is fundamental to the concept of private ownership of property.

Until something is sold or given to you, you do not own it. Nobody makes this kind of anti-ownership argument except in the case of IP (or to justify variations of Communism). You cannot justify the position that denial of access to a non-essential product is a moral right or is "abusive".

As for "the free flow of information"? That is a slippery slope that would devalue any IP you'd care to name. History has shown us multiple times that he greatest rate of home-grown advancements in technology exists in countries that protect IP rights the most rigorously. Russia stagnated vis a vis the West until Peter the Great instituted certain changes that protected the rights of inventors at the national level (not as good as in the West, but better than "self-help" which had been the rule before). More recently, China has had to crack down on some of the pirates that Western businesses have been complaining about for decades because the pirates had broadened their operations to include Chinese businesses (which started to fail at alarming rates).

What IS abusive to the good of society is the disregard of the rules by which we allow persons to benefit from the product of their efforts.

Hence my McRib analogy. No one would seriously assert that, once the McRib was created that society at large had a right to have McRibs; McDonalds is free to remove it from the market at will. They also have a right (to anwer RC) to prevent someone from releasing a product identical to the McRib or to use "McRib" to describe their product...but CANNOT prevent someone from making their own rib sandwich with a different recipe & name.

 

[billd91]

As for "the free flow of information"? That is a slippery slope that would devalue any IP you'd care to name. History has shown us multiple times that he greatest rate of home-grown advancements in technology exists in countries that protect IP rights the most rigorously. Russia stagnated vis a vis the West until Peter the Great instituted certain changes that protected the rights of inventors at the national level (not as good as in the West, but better than "self-help" which had been the rule before). More recently, China has had to crack down on some of the pirates that Western businesses have been complaining about for decades because the pirates had broadened their operations to include Chinese businesses (which started to fail at alarming rates).

It also may have shown us the opposite as well: No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

That said, sitting anywhere on the spectrum from strict copyright enforcement to no copyright for luxury entertainment products is hardly a question of morality and legitimately exercising whatever rights are recognized anywhere along that spectrum is hardly unethical. Asserting rights that are not recognized, would be--such as distributing materials when not approved by the copyright holder or exerting rights and control in excess of what is recognized.

 

[Raven Crowking]

They also have a right (to anwer RC) to prevent someone from releasing a product identical to the McRib or to use "McRib" to describe their product...but CANNOT prevent someone from making their own rib sandwich with a different recipe & name.

I suppose that would answer me if I questioned their rights.

Rights are a legal entity; they are not an ethical entity. Ethics sometimes demands that one does something one has no right to do. Ethics also sometimes demands that one refrain from acting on one's rights.

Example of the first: In a society where group X is being systematically killed, I have an ethical duty to protect group X, even if it is a violation of legal obligations.

Example of the second: In a society where I have the right to the proceeds from my ex-wife's estate upon her death, I may be ethically obligated to not do so if it harms my children, her children which are not mine, or others to whom I have a moral obligation.

Rights and obligations do not define ethics; ethics define how rights should be used and how obligations should be met. You are putting the cart before the horse.



RC

 

[Dandu]

And requesting that PDFs of questionable legality being withdrawn to protect intellectual property rights is unethical.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Rights and obligations do not define ethics; ethics define how rights should be used and how obligations should be met. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Flipping the McRib example, in what way is it ethical for someone to take someone else's commercial recipe (and/or product identity) and use it for their own commercial product?

Long story short, it isn't ethical, and thus, actions taken within the society's legal framework to end such unethical behavior is at least prima facie ethical.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It also may have shown us the opposite as well: No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

I disagree with his conclusion: other factors he himself mentions could account for most if not all of the difference.

For example, he points out that German publishers typically had limited print runs of premium editions alongside a large print runs of inexpensive editions for the mass market. This is what we would call a very modern business model for a publisher...at least pre-Internet.

In contrast, print runs in the other countries were exclusively premium editions under 1000 copies, relying on massive markups alone to become profitable.

IOW, Germany's IP explosion is not a copyright issue, that's a business model issue.

 

[billd91]

I disagree with his conclusion: other factors he himself mentions could account for most if not all of the difference.

For example, he points out that German publishers typically had limited print runs of premium editions alongside a large print runs of inexpensive editions for the mass market. This is what we would call a very modern business model for a publisher...at least pre-Internet.

In contrast, print runs in the other countries were exclusively premium editions under 1000 copies, relying on massive markups alone to become profitable.

IOW, Germany's IP explosion is not a copyright issue, that's a business model issue.

But why did German publishers adopt that business model? Lack of copyright, I think is an entirely reasonable conclusion. When faced with an environment where they couldn't count on their IP being protected, they found a way to still make an effective business model around it.

Could the Russians have made similar advances without copyright protection by adopting a similar business model? Was it really lack of IP that hampered Russian invention or lack of supporting business models and infrastructure?