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

[Dandu]

What do you claim is ethical?

 

[Nebten]

In before lock

 

[billd91]

Why not?

That would, for one thing, be depriving them of freedom for your edification - something I think that most people would consider a more grave example of unethical behavior.

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.

I think you're starting to tread on that as well. If there is no objectively wrong behavior (or we are in any way unable to determine objectively right behavior), then how can you declare that activies that harm no one and considered normal for centures are unethical? If there are no detectable objective ethical standards, then wouldn't behavior considered normal for centuries define standards of behavior? Or are you proposing that an artist declining to distribute his work breaks some more important ethical consideration that would justify his compellence?

 

[Androrc]

That would, for one thing, be depriving them of freedom for your edification - something I think that most people would consider a more grave example of unethical behavior.

Let's be clear that we are talking about their freedom of having a monopoly - the freedom to restrict freedom. It is more alike granting the first person to build a mill in a region the monopoly to have mills there than modern liberties.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

In before lock

Much as I appreciate you bumping my thread's post count up by 1, do you really think this adds to the discussion?

 

[billd91]

Let's be clear that we are talking about their freedom of having a monopoly - the freedom to restrict freedom. It is more alike granting the first person to build a mill in a region the monopoly to have mills there than modern liberties.

No. It's more like freedom to monopolize something that nobody needs and wouldn't exist if you hadn't made it in the first place. Mills hold a place in a certain kind of economy far more crucial than that.
Plus, having the monopoly to control the display and distribution of your own work doesn't prevent anybody else from displaying and distributing their own works. It's exclusivity of control of a work, not a protected monopoly preventing anyone else from creating another work capable of competing for people's attention. So the mill monopoly comparison doesn't fit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

That is not the assertion I made. Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.

A State may be able to force a company to supply goods that keep its population fed, clothed and sheltered (if no alternative exists), but to force someone to supply a non-essential is- depending upon your political leanings- facism, the nanny state, communism, etc.

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

Entertainment IS important. It is NOT important enough, however, that the supplier of a particular form of entertainment be enslaved to the wishes of the populace.

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.

Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership. If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.

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)

ALL property is a social convention. Many societies have existed where there is no concept of personal ownership...though not many of them have survived the test of time.

If you want to knock down ownership of IP, just realize that there will be a great cost associated with removal of its protection.

As for the access issue: its true that if you hack my computer and steal one of my recordings, I still have access to it. However, I have lost the ability to sell it to you or to any third party with whom you "share" it- just like a material property owner. If the "sharing" goes on at an exponential rate (I'm a DAMN good guitarist ), eventually, the entire market for that recording will be destroyed unless I somehow find a way to add value to it.

I'm no less damaged than if someone drills into the reservoir beneath my home and takes all the liquid found within it.

Just because something is easy to steal doesn't mean its any less stolen when its gone.

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.

But that isn't what I said. I said there is no State force compelling the creator to remove their creations from the public. THAT is a crime against society.

The State protecting a creator's rights in his own work, be it a concept or a crop in the field isn't what we're discussing. The State, by protecting IP, is encouraging persons to create it because that monopoly gives them a chance to profit from their efforts. THAT leads to the enrichment of society, it is generally seen as a social good.

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

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.

I agree that those things are fundamental as well.

However, I disagree that your right to liberty, dignity and the pursuit of happiness entitles you to take away my control (or the control of my successors in interest) of what I create.

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.

Agreed.

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?

That sentence you parsed was just a way of shorthanding that there are lots of different schools of ethical theory before getting to the next point...and I'm pretty sure if you're an ethics hotshot, you realized that. The semicolons were there to provide a "cliff's note" version of a couple of them. I'm sure you realized that as well. So why the show?

There are what, 2 dozen general schools of thought about the nature of ethics- deontology, consequentialism, cyrenaic hedonism, epicurianism and stoicism to name but a few (some of which conflict inherently with others)- not to mention all the hundreds if not thousands of unique religious nuances on each...

Yet I can't think of one that justifies forcing a creator of ideas to share them.

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

True, but when you start applying ethical constructs to ephemera like specific kinds of entertainment, those systems break down. None will compel the creator to create.

Why not?

Because that is slavery.

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?

No, I'm asserting that this position you seem to support would entail such disruptions to the creative process (and the sale or licensing of the fruits of that process) as to be severely curtailing the liberty, dignity and pursuit of happiness of the creators of IP.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If there is no objectively wrong behavior (or we are in any way unable to determine objectively right behavior), then how can you declare that activies that harm no one and considered normal for centures are unethical?

(1) What have I declared unethical?

(2) What activities harm no one? AFAICT, ethics is involved with determining the scope of potential harm to oneself and others, as well as the scope of possible benefit, and attempting to balance the two.

If there are no detectable objective ethical standards, then wouldn't behavior considered normal for centuries define standards of behavior?

Why would this be so?

Ethics is anything but stagnant!

Behaviour considered normal for centuries is often no longer considered normal centuries later. What is considered harmful or of benefit may well vary by culture....One can think of many historical practices that were once considered ethical that are no longer considered to be so. Some are even now considered to be abhorent.

Our understanding of ethics changes, and most often changes in response to the widespread acceptence of new forms of communication. The printing press, mass literacy, radio, television, and film sparked (and some may continue to spark) ethical debate.

One should hardly expect the Internet to be different. Among other obvious factors, the Internet gives us a better ability to track the harm we do!

It is encumbent upon each of us, in our time, to ponder how we should be living, and what is an acceptable balance between harm to others/benefit to ourselves. That is, I would say, our primary ethical duty as human beings.

Or are you proposing that an artist declining to distribute his work breaks some more important ethical consideration that would justify his compellence?

I am proposing nothing of the sort. I am proposing that questions as to the ethics of any decision/action are always open to debate.

I will always oppose a statement that X is firmly ethical, or firmly not, or that we cannot or should not engage in discussions about ethics.

(And I mean this in terms of a society; I certainly agree with EN World's right to limit discussions of ethics to factors that the moderators determine are relevant to the site as a whole, as well as to moderate how those discussions may take place.)

Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.

This again conflates an argument about legality, and/or government duties, with an argument about ethics.

If the State has no justification in forcing someone to supply a non-essential to those who lack it, then the State has no justification in forcing someone to comply with, say, copyright, if the individual(s) holding the copyright cannot themselves enforce it.

Copyright is, after all, non-essential.

But most of us agree that the State does indeed have a justification in supplying copyright enforcement to those who lack said enforcement....even if we also agree it is a non-essential.

And I very much doubt that you consider this "facism, the nanny state, communism, etc."

Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership. If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.

You are a lawyer, right?

Please explain "Fair Use" to me. If I cannot prohibit Fair Use (which is the use of property), then I don't own it?

Please explain "Right of Way" to me. If I cannot prohibit the right to travel unhindered across a throughway (which is the use of property), then I don't own the land?

There are more examples in law, if you actually require them. One ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that you are wrong here. I can both own property and not have the right to prohibit all use of it.

Yet I can't think of one that justifies forcing a creator of ideas to share them.

And you cannot think of one that justifies an idea becoming public domain perforce of it being shared?

No, I'm asserting that this position you seem to support would entail such disruptions to the creative process (and the sale or licensing of the fruits of that process) as to be severely curtailing the liberty, dignity and pursuit of happiness of the creators of IP.

What position do you believe I am supporting?

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.​

How does that require slavery?

And, even if I were to take the stance that profitting by putting forth your idea should cause that idea to then, after a period, enter the public domain.....How does that require slavery?

Or does thinking the current period to long change it into slavery?

For that matter, if I discover a cure for cancer, and I believe it is unethical of me to not share that cure....how does that belief that my actions would be unethical force me to follow some other course? Surely, I decide whether or not to do what I believe is ethical.

And, should I publicly do something that you believe is unethical, why should the State (or anyone else) protect me from your publicly calling my ethics into question?


RC

 

[Androrc]

That is not the assertion I made. Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.

I was actually responding to billd91 on that one.

A State may be able to force a company to supply goods that keep its population fed, clothed and sheltered (if no alternative exists), but to force someone to supply a non-essential is- depending upon your political leanings- facism, the nanny state, communism, etc.

Entertainment IS important. It is NOT important enough, however, that the supplier of a particular form of entertainment be enslaved to the wishes of the populace.

I agree entirely. I am not for State forcing people to provide services or goods. But, if they are no longer willing to provide them, they shouldn't be able to stop others from doing so either. In other words, if Wizards had taken out the older edition stuff out of circulation, and allowed people to distribute the material, there would be no ethical problem. And intent is important here - they intended to deprive the market of certain goods to pressure customers into buying their newer products; they took out of circulation a product that could be regarded by the market as better than the newer one to force the market into buying new products. What they did was certainly not in the common interest.

Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership. If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.


ALL property is a social convention. Many societies have existed where there is no concept of personal ownership...though not many of them have survived the test of time.

If you want to knock down ownership of IP, just realize that there will be a great cost associated with removal of its protection.

I don't think ownership of IP should be knocked down at all, I just am saying that in certain situations, the owner's privilege should not be considered, to favor common interest. I'm not saying in *any* case that favors common interest that privilege shouldn't be regarded, but just that if a supplier no longer wants to perform a service or sell a certain good, then others should be allowed to pick up the slack. When I said that intellectual property is murky, I didn't mean to say that it shouldn't exist, far from that, but only that things that apply to material property shouldn't immediately apply to intellectual property, only if it makes sense to apply them.

As for the access issue: its true that if you hack my computer and steal one of my recordings, I still have access to it. However, I have lost the ability to sell it to you or to any third party with whom you "share" it- just like a material property owner. If the "sharing" goes on at an exponential rate (I'm a DAMN good guitarist ), eventually, the entire market for that recording will be destroyed unless I somehow find a way to add value to it.

I'm no less damaged than if someone drills into the reservoir beneath my home and takes all the liquid found within it.

Just because something is easy to steal doesn't mean its any less stolen when its gone.

Yes, but in this case what you are complaining of is the stealing of your potential profits, not your intellectual property. That is material wealth, and accordingly the rules for material property would have no problems dealing with it. And the distributors in such a case wouldn't be doing much benefit to society either, as they would be providing something that you would already provide, and they would be greatly harming your stimulus to create more.

But that isn't what I said. I said there is no State force compelling the creator to remove their creations from the public. THAT is a crime against society.

The State protecting a creator's rights in his own work, be it a concept or a crop in the field isn't what we're discussing. The State, by protecting IP, is encouraging persons to create it because that monopoly gives them a chance to profit from their efforts. THAT leads to the enrichment of society, it is generally seen as a social good.

And it is good, but in the extreme, it can be quite harmful as well. In any case, the external action of the State in granting those monopolies is worth the mention because the State is interfering in the market none the less. It doesn't matter if it is removing the goods from the market directly or giving the right to remove them to third parties, it is still intervention. Now, that intervention is good, but only up to a point; as it stands now, the way the State handles monopolies granted to IP holders is harmful to the market, it's harmful to the common interest. While protection is important to stimulate innovation, it is not positive to go overboard with protection either.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dannyalcatraz
Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.

This again conflates an argument about legality, and/or government duties, with an argument about ethics.

No it doesn't.

Even if its own laws do not specifically state that it can do so, a state can ethically justify forcible redistribution of things like food or shelter in protecting the interests of its citizens because those things are utterly essential to human survival.

There is no ethical analog here. Non-essentials are nice. They enrich our lives. We are better off for having them. But there is no justification for the state to force someone to supply...say...an RPG.

If the State has no justification in forcing someone to supply a non-essential to those who lack it, then the State has no justification in forcing someone to comply with, say, copyright, if the individual(s) holding the copyright cannot themselves enforce it.

Not true.

A State or indeed any government has a vested interest in ensuring all kinds of rights for the benefit of its citizenry, including preventing citizens from acting against the interests of other citizens.

In the case of protecting IP, the state is protecting the right of someone to profit from their own efforts.

In the case of forcing someone to supply IP, that is slavery.


Quote:

Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership. If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.

You are a lawyer, right?

Please explain "Fair Use" to me. If I cannot prohibit Fair Use (which is the use of property), then I don't own it?

Please explain "Right of Way" to me. If I cannot prohibit the right to travel unhindered across a throughway (which is the use of property), then I don't own the land?

There are more examples in law, if you actually require them. One ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that you are wrong here. I can both own property and not have the right to prohibit all use of it.

At no point did I use the absolute term "all"- as previously stated, all property is a social construct, and those noted exceptions are enumerated within the laws of property. (Indeed, upthread I posted information about the divisible bundle of rights that exist in real property when talking about "surface estates", "mineral estates" and "estates entire," sorry you missed it.)

And with each of those exceptions, the burden of proof lies upon the person or entity relying on the exception because the default presumption is that of exclusion.
Quote:

Yet I can't think of one that justifies forcing a creator of ideas to share them.

And you cannot think of one that justifies an idea becoming public domain perforce of it being shared?

Again, this is an exception already extant within the rules of the social construct within IP laws, so not worth covering explicitly.

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

Again, make the case: what have they done that rises to the level of being unethical?

What position do you believe I am supporting?

Well, this:

Me
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.

You
Why not?

There is no supportable ethical position that forces another to provide you with non-essentials.

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.

How does that require slavery?

I believe we've lost each other here, because I'm not following your inquiry and the slavery to which I referred was in forcing someone to work to supply you with non-essentials.

And, even if I were to take the stance that profitting by putting forth your idea should cause that idea to then, after a period, enter the public domain.....How does that require slavery?

This, again, is part of the background assumptions of IP that up until now we were not discussing. To the best of my knowledge, WotC has NOT removed or attempted to remove from the market of ideas anything that has fallen into public domain.

For that matter, if I discover a cure for cancer, and I believe it is unethical of me to not share that cure....how does that belief that my actions would be unethical force me to follow some other course? Surely, I decide whether or not to do what I believe is ethical.

I don't understand where you're going here. We've been discussing whether its ethical to withdraw something non-essential from the market and/or withhold it from ever being released.

And, should I publicly do something that you believe is unethical, why should the State (or anyone else) protect me from your publicly calling my ethics into question?

You have freedom to say that, absolutely. Discourse is essential to a functioning society.

i'm just waiting for an example of WotC's behavior that you claim is actually unethical because 1) I haven't seen anything I'd describe that way and 2) you haven't provided an example.