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

[billd91]

Be that as it may, the IP in question is only "theirs" because of, that's right, money. That is their (i.e., Hasbro's) sole claim to it: possession via purchase.

Now you might be of the (admittedly, fashionable!) belief that that not only gives them the right to to whatever they wish with said "property", but also automatically makes anything so done... right.

I am not.

Actually, since we're talking about WotC and not just Hasbro here, the d20 IP in question is theirs because they created it. Sure, it was based on a property they bought but then they modified it with their own labor. That's far more than just possession via purchase.

And lest you assume to much (and we all know what that causes), believing there's nothing unethical or immoral about what WotC is doing with their property doesn't mean that I think it's the best plan. It may be alright as in nothing's specifically wrong with it either morally, ethically, or legally, but that doesn't make it right as in the best strategy. I'm just not going to get my undies in a wad over it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I certainly wish that ethics were as clear-cut, black & white, right & wrong, as some in this thread seem to believe. Having studied the philosophy of ethics, though, I am forced to conclude differently.

Who said it was that neat?

(Phi Sigma Tau, BTW.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Who said it was that neat?

(Phi Sigma Tau, BTW.)

It is certainly implied in any statement which conflates a legal system with a justice system. It is also strongly implied in any absolutist statement of morality or ethics.

For example:

There's nothing at all unethical in WotC asking for their IP to be taken down, regardless of how long it has been out there. There's nothing ethical in distributing IP beyond fair use that isn't yours without permission. There's nothing unethical about the copyrighting of the materials in question nor the duration of the copyright held so far (it's not like WotC is trying to extend their copyright duration like Disney's maneuvering over Mickey Mouse).

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.

They are NOT harming the public good by removing their products from the market.

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

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.

I wish I could be as certain of ethics as these people seem to be.

I wish I could be as certain as to what the public good was, and what harms it.

I wish I could be as certain as to how ethics applies to the idea of holding ideas as property (and there is a legitimate reason why these questions apply to IP more than, say, to your house!).

I wish I could be as certain that recognized rights (legal system) was co-equivilent to recognized ethics (justice system).

Ethics is not covering your ass in a legal sense. Ethics is what one does (hopefully) regardless of the consequences of action. Covering your ass requires turning a blind eye to unethical behaviour (and more often than not, your own), either because of an actual or perceived benefit accruing from doing so (or negative consequence of not doing so). Declaring that there is absolutely no ethical problem is a common means to do so.

So, let me repeat my stance:

There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case. Indeed, there is never a case where examining/debating the ethics of any behaviour by anyone is illegitimate.

The primary legal duty of a corporation is to make the most money possible for its shareholders. This is not, and should never be considered, the primary ethical responsibility of anyone or anything.



RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case.

Show me some particular way(s) in which you feel they've behaved unethically.

Dannyalcatraz
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.

I stand by that as an ethical statement. If the company is not producing something fundamental to human existence, there is no duty to continue production.

Dannyalcatraz
They are NOT harming the public good by removing their products from the market.

Again, we're talking about a particular RPG, a luxury item; a non-essential product. It's voluntary removal from the stream of commerce by its owners would be a bummer, but raises no ethical issues. I stand by this.

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

Again, I see no ethical quandary, this is an issue of logic: if you cannot limit access to something, you cannot be said to have control or ownership of that thing.

Or are you asking whether ownership itself is ethical?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I stand by that as an ethical statement. If the company is not producing something fundamental to human existence, there is no duty to continue production.


Again, we're talking about a particular RPG, a luxury item; a non-essential product. It's voluntary removal from the stream of commerce by its owners would be a bummer, but raises no ethical issues. I stand by this.

Why is it only essential things to human existence? Shouldn't something apply to creative works in general, or at least art specifically? With digital media, there wasn't even a need ot keep producing anything, just having the information for sale online (pdfs) would suffice. What WotC is doing is purposely trying to marginalize their own earlier product and reduce/eliminate access to it as much as possible. I do think that is unethical to some extent, assuming that is their motive (denying the public access to their creative work).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Before I continue, I want to clarify: I absolutely do not agree with a lot of what WotC has done in the past few years- I just haven't seen any behavior towards the public I'd characterize as being unethical or immoral.

Why is it only essential things to human existence?

Because for there to be a violation of an ethical principle, there must be some duty that was violated (deontologically speaking); because an action has to be objectively wrong; Etc. Every ethical system deals with fundamentals of human existence.

And when you're talking about non-essentials, you're just not going to get there.

As an artist and lawyer and a bunch of other things, I agree that certainly, there is a need for art in society. But you cannot argue that a particular artist has an ethical/moral duty to create; a duty to allow initial or continued access to his or her work.

If it were otherwise, nearly any creator would be guilty of acting unethically. Writers revise, musicians re-record. Painters completely obliterate past works to create different ones. Dali, Prince, Joyce- anyone you can name has either sequestered and/or destroyed their own work.

In short, while humanity has a right to art and other creative endeavors, humanity has no right to a particular piece of art.

And to be clear- this is an IP owner exercising control over their own stuff.

Were there an external force removing said IP from the market, that would be a different issue, such as censorship or possibly even, yes, a moral/ethical violation and crime against humanity.

But that's not happening here.

 

[billd91]

Why is it only essential things to human existence? Shouldn't something apply to creative works in general, or at least art specifically? With digital media, there wasn't even a need ot keep producing anything, just having the information for sale online (pdfs) would suffice. What WotC is doing is purposely trying to marginalize their own earlier product and reduce/eliminate access to it as much as possible. I do think that is unethical to some extent, assuming that is their motive (denying the public access to their creative work).

Why only things essential to human existence? Because building a moral or ethical system around access to a specific non-essential item would be really silly.
I think it's important for people to have access to non-essential materials to pursue in their leisure time. Maybe things like this stimulate their intellects, broaden their horizons, soothe their nerves, or bring them indescribable joy. But I don't think it's at all important that any single producer of such materials forever make a particular item available. Suppose I really like the 4th episode of the first (and only) season of Quark. To behave ethically, is either NBC or Buck Henry obligated to make it available to me? Are they behaving unethically because they don't? I don't think so. I think their behavior in not letting me (and legions other fans) have it is ethical, moral, and legal even if I'm not getting what I want.

 

[Androrc]

That argument goes both ways, though. If companies don't have to provide access to non-essentials because they aren't important enough to society, then there is no reason for the State to protect IPs related to non-essentials, as they aren't important to society.

In any case, I disagree. Happiness is essential to human life, and that makes entertainment quite important to society.

If it were otherwise, nearly any creator would be guilty of acting unethically. Writers revise, musicians re-record. Painters completely obliterate past works to create different ones. Dali, Prince, Joyce- anyone you can name has either sequestered and/or destroyed their own work.

hat is being discussed here is not shutting down initiatives of people that want to provide access to such creations when the original creator no longer does, not a duty for the creator personally to provide any and all versions of the creation at all times. Destroying their past work is fine, destroying their past work and prohibiting people who have remnants of it from making it available again is not.

And to be clear- this is an IP owner exercising control over their own stuff.

It is only "their" because the State guarantees that. Actual intellectual property is a murky area, given that while it exists by analogy with material property, it does not share many of the characteristics that material property does (for instance, you don't deny the original owner access to his product if you infringe IP)

Were there an external force removing said IP from the market, that would be a different issue, such as censorship or possibly even, yes, a moral/ethical violation and crime against humanity.

But that's not happening here.

Ah, but it is. An external force, the State, is giving monopolies based on past creativity. There is nothing "natural" with IP protecting - not that there is anything natural about the alternatives either, but all are compromises based on the differing interests within a society and the interests of the society as a whole.

 

[Dandu]

Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of happiness.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Show me some particular way(s) in which you feel they've behaved unethically.

My point doesn't require that I agree the behaviour is unethical, or that you do so.

I stand by that as an ethical statement. If the company is not producing something fundamental to human existence, there is no duty to continue production.

Again, I wish I had your certainty that ethics only applies to "something fundamental to human existence". Personally, I tend to think that things which are not are deeply involved in ethical debate. Examples: Liberty, dignity, pursuit of happiness.

YMMV, though.

Again, I see no ethical quandary, this is an issue of logic: if you cannot limit access to something, you cannot be said to have control or ownership of that thing.

Or are you asking whether ownership itself is ethical?

Ownership in any sense is a socially granted phenomenon, and is rooted in what that society views as ethical. Ethics very much enter into what can be owned, what should be owned, and how far ownership rights should extend.

Note please that I do not say "How far ownership rights do extend". That is a matter of law, and is therefore as objective as the law is objective. Should, OTOH, is subjective, and therefore open to debate.

My point doesn't require that I agree the current should needs to be changed, or that you do so. It merely requires that what is ethical cannot be objectively known.

Because for there to be a violation of an ethical principle, there must be some duty that was violated (deontologically speaking);

Legal duty =/= ethical duty.

because an action has to be objectively wrong; Etc.

Please explain this objective system of ethics you refer to. Humanity has been looking for it since the dawn of history. Do you really feel it is fair to keep this knowledge from the rest of us?

Every ethical system deals with fundamentals of human existence.

Every ethical system deals with, but is not limited to, fundamentals of human existence.

But you cannot argue that a particular artist has an ethical/moral duty to create; a duty to allow initial or continued access to his or her work.

Why not?

If it were otherwise, nearly any creator would be guilty of acting unethically.

So?

Are you claiming that something is ethical simply because it is done, or that it must not be unethical because we would otherwise be guilty of acting unethically?

That's pretty shaky ground, my friend.



RC