Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Harry" data-source="post: 1555484" data-attributes="member: 5468">As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are ways to address a ludricrously overstated price.&nbsp; In the case of example #1, this does not give one the &quot;right&quot; to steal an apple from you, and - in this case- the value of the apple will not be held by a judge to be equivalent to your price.&nbsp; I know of nothing in gaming that is remotely comparible to your example.&nbsp; For example, while I have heard a number of people speak well of Dragonomicon (by WotC), but to me the perceived value is not worth the $35 (or whatever).&nbsp; This means that I haven't bought, not that I have the right to steal it, nor that there is no foul if I steal it, &quot;since it wasn't worth the price to me&quot;.&nbsp; That is the choice, not &quot;what should I buy and what should I steal?&quot;&nbsp; In the case of Example #2, the U.S. courts would only uphold that (though IANAL) if you had established &quot;I eat cheese at midnight&quot; as having some identity value to you that another person/entity was trying to infringe upon.My example #1:Tom Servo: &quot;To infinity ...&quot;Crow: &quot;Disney. Lawsuit.&quot;Tom Servo: &quot; ... and some other places!&quot;&nbsp; My example #2:&nbsp; FOX news sued Al Franken to prevent him from using the phrase &quot;fair and balanced&quot; as part of the extended title of his book Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.&nbsp; This was thrown out of court, and the judge ordered the FOX lawyer to be given a wedgie.&nbsp; (Although I might be mis-remebering that last part.)&nbsp;&nbsp; What does this have to do with anything?&nbsp; Is there someone in this thread who is arguing for perpetual and omnipotent?&nbsp; In any event, I fail to see how your point holds up.&nbsp; The seller has the right to set the price for his/her work.&nbsp; If you don't want to pay that, don't buy it.&nbsp; This establishes the whole concept of competition.&nbsp; You are not being forced to buy any gamebook, and you or I have no need of the Dragonomicon, or the PHB3.5, or whatever.&nbsp; There is no gaming material that you have a *need* for.&nbsp; You are not powerless - you have the power to express your disapproval by not buying them smegging thing!.&nbsp; You have the right to rebel by choosing what you will spend your money on.&nbsp; Since no one is forcing you to buy the Super book of Fighters, or whatever, saying that you download the book as a rebellion would just be a weak rationalization for stealing the material.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dr. Harry, post: 1555484, member: 5468"] As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are ways to address a ludricrously overstated price. In the case of example #1, this does not give one the "right" to steal an apple from you, and - in this case- the value of the apple will not be held by a judge to be equivalent to your price. I know of nothing in gaming that is remotely comparible to your example. For example, while I have heard a number of people speak well of Dragonomicon (by WotC), but to me the perceived value is not worth the $35 (or whatever). This means that I haven't bought, not that I have the right to steal it, nor that there is no foul if I steal it, "since it wasn't worth the price to me". That is the choice, not "what should I buy and what should I steal?" In the case of Example #2, the U.S. courts would only uphold that (though IANAL) if you had established "I eat cheese at midnight" as having some identity value to you that another person/entity was trying to infringe upon. My example #1: Tom Servo: "To infinity ..." Crow: "Disney. Lawsuit." Tom Servo: " ... and some other places!" My example #2: FOX news sued Al Franken to prevent him from using the phrase "fair and balanced" as part of the extended title of his book [b] Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right[/b]. This was thrown out of court, and the judge ordered the FOX lawyer to be given a wedgie. (Although I might be mis-remebering that last part.) What does this have to do with anything? Is there someone in this thread who is arguing for perpetual and omnipotent? In any event, I fail to see how your point holds up. The seller has the right to set the price for his/her work. If you don't want to pay that, [i]don't buy it[/i]. This establishes the whole concept of competition. You are not being forced to buy any gamebook, and you or I have no [b]need[/b] of the Dragonomicon, or the PHB3.5, or whatever. There is no gaming material that you have a *need* for. You are not powerless - you have the power to express your disapproval by [i]not buying them smegging thing![/i]. You have the right to rebel by choosing what you will spend your money on. Since no one is forcing you to buy the Super book of Fighters, or whatever, saying that you download the book as a rebellion would just be a weak rationalization for stealing the material. [/QUOTE]

Verification