Sm!rk said:
I doubt that highly. I could see that maybe for things in the core books that weren't in the SRD, but all their other products?
I think I spelled it out specifically, maybe I didn't. WotC books have no OGC and are not published under the OGL. WotC *can* take issue with it. I agree with you on that one. A d20 publisher, whose stuff IS done under the OGL, may have difficulties. Sorry if that was not clear.
By taking it without paying you aren't saying you don't agree with the view of property, you are saying that you still want the property, but don' want to pay for it. The people that truelly oppose RIAA are those that reject commerically sold music and buy independent, or sing in the back yard with bongos and guitars.
I more or less fall into this category. I do have scads of CDs with commercially recorded music - but all are at least 4-5 years old. I no longer buy new ones, and have not for 4-5 years. So I am trying truly to oppose the RIAA, a reversal of previous support. But this is totally OT and I will say no more about it.
You are being very loose with logic here, a grocery withholding an apple from me as I die of starvation is impolite, or inhuman, but not infringment upon my natural right to live.
Ah, but to take that apple without compensation is an infringement upon the grocery store's natural right to property. You have the right to life, liberty, and property, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. My personal definition (YMMV) of "infringing upon the property rights of others" is "any action that directly interferes with your ability to use - and strictly 'profit from' is not considered 'use' - your property."
Taking an apple from a grocery store directly infringes on their right to property. A grocery store which owns an apple may do with the apple as they please (they may sell it, they may throw it away, they may make it into applesauce, etc.) If I take it from them, I deny them the use of that apple.
Taking an idea, by contrast, does not directly infringe upon another's right to property. A person who has an idea may do with it as he pleases - he may write it down, he may attempt to sell the writings, he may dictate it, he may stay silent, and so on. My use of his idea in no way keeps him from doing any of these activities (though if he chooses to attempt to sell his writings, his profit margin may decline). Therefore, stealing ideas is NOT an infringement on the rights of others (under my admittedly strict definition).
Note one thing there - you have the right to ATTEMPT to sell, but NOT the right to SELL, property. There is *no guarantee* that people must buy from you. The store may attempt to sell the apple, but there is no guarantee that they will.
Therefore, taking and freely distributing your idea is NOT an infringement on your rights. If you say, "you cut into my profits" - I point out that you were never guaranteed those profits in the first place. Just as you can try to sell apples for $40 each, but don't go suing the grocery store for your "lost profits" when they sell them for (much) less. It gets murky here with the concept of "my idea" but I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as "my idea" - merely discovering something first does not make it uniquely yours.
I used to share those views, but then I got a job and entered a world where bills aren't "the things my parents pay."
If, by this, you are attempting to imply that I am an ignorant kid who still relies on his parents, you are incorrect. I have a job, a wife, and a child. I pay the bills. I fail to see how this ought to change my ideological bent - unless, of course, I suddenly have a conflict of interest - IOW, if my job is to create my own "Intellectual Property" and sell it (more on this below). That, to me, entails nothing less than "selling out" my ideals for money. If I were to do that, I would be of all men most miserable.
I refuse to change my ideals for convenience. That's why they're ideals (not actions). I may change the way I act for convenience - for instance, I do not "pirate" software and books and CDs because I don't want to be arrested and leave my wife and child hanging (I think doing so is a bigger moral wrong than to try to "fight the power" and rebel in act instead of in word and through attempts to fix laws I think are broken), but that doesn't mean I think "pirating" is inherently morally wrong. I simply feel that my responsibility to my wife and child outweighs my desire to act in a manner that is illegal, especially when I can satisfy my conscience by not supporting organizations such as the RIAA. I may not be actively fighting them, but at least I'm not supporting them either - and I can live with that. My actions are born of expediency, while my ideals are born of... well... idealism. Surely you understand the difference.
However, I personally find it extraordinarily insulting that artists, writers, and other "creators of intellectual property" feel that their contributions are so valuable to the world that they ought to be able to do work once and be paid for it forever. It's an elitist attitude that suggests that they feel the world somehow owes them for their "brilliance." To me that is the height of laziness and greed. Screw people who think the world owes them a living.
To continue receiving money over time, most of us in the economy are required to continue producing work over time. You don't pay the plumber who installed your toilet a fee every time you flush it. He is paid once for the initial work and gets no residuals. You don't pay the doctor who set your broken arm every time you use that arm. If the plumber wants to continue making money, he must continue to work and install more toilets. If the doctor wants to make more money, he must continue to work and set broken arms. In other words, "a continuous flow of money into your pocket requires a continuous expenditure of work on your part."
For some reason, the "owners" of "Intellectual Property" want to be above this concept. They feel that a one-time expenditure of work (the writing of a book or drawing of a picture or recording of a song) should translate into a continuous flow of money. Does anyone else find this elitist and/or insulting? I say that those who create intellectual property should be asked to continue contributing work to society just like the rest of us.
The closest thing that we see in the material world to this concept is that of "leasing" or "renting" of land/real estate property. But this also requires a continued expenditure of work on the part of the landowner... if the land owner does not expend work maintaining and/or improving the land, it becomes unusable and his flow of income will stop (because he will have no tenant).
My suspicion - and I have no way to confirm this - is that you, Sm!rk, are among (or consider yourself among) the "creators" of "intellectual property." You have a strong vested interest in the subject, rather than a strictly ideological one. Of course a creator of intellectual property wants to be continuously paid for a one-time expenditure of work - who wouldn't? However, unless you pay royalties to your plumber when you flush the toilet, to your dentist every time you eat, and so on, your "ideology" is every bit as hypocritical as you claim mine to be if I denounce the RIAA while purchasing their stuff (which I no longer do).
This is really no longer on-topic at all and should admittedly be taken to e-mail. If you wish to e-mail me, please feel free to do so at
the_sigil@hotmail.com . Sorry if I sound a little hot, but as I said, the attitudes and assumptions of those who support Intellectual Property are usually a bit insulting to me.
Perhaps I have it wrong and you feel that there is a compelling moral or ethical reason for Intellectual Property that I don't know about. If that is the case, I apologize for taking offense at your position.
--The Sigil
