Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Simplicity" data-source="post: 1115509" data-attributes="member: 1496">I've got two problems with your argument...(1) In paragraph 3, you refer to AV attempting to &quot;make additional profit off using another's trademark&quot;.&nbsp; How much money do you think the BoEF is going to make?&nbsp; It's not like the guys at Valar are going to be rolling in dough when this comes out.&nbsp; People make D&amp;D books because they enjoy what they're doing, not because it's going to make them rich.&nbsp; Having a get rich quick scheme for something that isn't going to make you rich seems pretty stupid to me.(2) Your treatment of WotC and Valar is shows contradictory logic.&nbsp; On the one hand, you argue that WotC holds the trademark, so it's not about free speech and the ethics of the situation doesn't matter.&nbsp; WotC can do whatever they like with their trademark legally, so whatever they do is fine.&nbsp; On the other hand, you argue that even though Valar is operating legally within the bounds of the old license, their knowledge that future licenses wouldn't allow what they're doing should ethically prevent them from releasing the BoEF.&nbsp; Huh?&nbsp; If WotC isn't going to act ethically, why should Valar?&nbsp; If WotC is going to fall back to the law to support their position, then why can't Valar?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Simplicity, post: 1115509, member: 1496"] I've got two problems with your argument... (1) In paragraph 3, you refer to AV attempting to "make additional profit off using another's trademark". How much money do you think the BoEF is going to make? It's not like the guys at Valar are going to be rolling in dough when this comes out. People make D&D books because they enjoy what they're doing, not because it's going to make them rich. Having a get rich quick scheme for something that isn't going to make you rich seems pretty stupid to me. (2) Your treatment of WotC and Valar is shows contradictory logic. On the one hand, you argue that WotC holds the trademark, so it's not about free speech and the ethics of the situation doesn't matter. WotC can do whatever they like with their trademark legally, so whatever they do is fine. On the other hand, you argue that even though Valar is operating legally within the bounds of the old license, their knowledge that future licenses wouldn't allow what they're doing should ethically prevent them from releasing the BoEF. Huh? If WotC isn't going to act ethically, why should Valar? If WotC is going to fall back to the law to support their position, then why can't Valar? [/QUOTE]

Verification