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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Well you just basically said that once I release IP into the market, you would prefer a rule that I no longer control access to it. Again, this devalues IP immensely. With such a regime, I can no longer sell or license my IP to others who may be better able to deliver it to the public.

if I perform a song at my local cafe, 3 customers and 2 baristas hear it. If I sell it to Sony, that song may be heard by almost 50 people (), maybe more! But if Sony can't enforce IP rights like deciding if & when the song will ever be released, they're not going to to buy it from me in the first place.

Those exclusionary rights are why movie production companies pay $10K $50K, $100k or more for "Options" on scripts. If someone can just walk up and produce a script that Paramount felt wasn't worth doing while Paramount has the rights to it, then those scriptwriters will never see those "options."

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.

No, see above. What you're proposing is extremely destructive of the value of IP.

Yes, but in this case what you are complaining of is the stealing of your potential profits, not your intellectual property.

The ability to leverage property- of any kind- for profit is one of the essential rights in the bundle. Some would call it the single most important parts. Destroy it, and what's left? Hmmm...the ability to use it for yourself.

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.

That's less intervention than setting the rules that everyone gets to follow.

As for harm, take a look at the history mentioned upthread: States that protect IP with copyright, trademark & patent laws have more internal innovation than those that don't.

If all you're saying is that its better to have more products in the market than fewer and that anyone should be able to sell products that have been removed from the market by their creators, then this "common interest" to which you keep alluding is looking more and more like simply letting others benefit from work they didn't do.

Besides, the State has rules to deal with genuinely harmful monopolies- Anti-trust.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

TL; DR version: How about some concrete examples of WotC's "unethical" behavior and why you consider it unethical?

 

[Raven Crowking]

No it doesn't.

Well, you can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

Repeatedly, I have demonstrated where your statements re: ethics are flawed. I haven't seen you answer any of those objections. Raising straw men related to law does not answer a question related to ethics.

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.

We could, of course, get into a debate about the ethics of slavery, but that is hardly necessary, as freedom from slavery is not essential for human survival and therefore the State has no business supplying it. If I accept the argument you made regarding ethics upthread, anyway.....which I do not.

In any event, there is a major difference between "forcing someone to supply IP" and saying that it is not ethical to not supply certain IP.....for the blatantly obvious reason that saying "X is not ethical" forces no one to not-X.

There is also a major difference between "forcing someone to supply IP" and granting that some portion of IP becomes public domain as a consequence of its being supplied.

And, since you no longer seem to believe that prohibiting the use of property means prohibiting all use, then the only thing left is a sliding scale, the ethics of which is based on subjective scale determined by society. That sliding scale has been more in favour of the public domain in the past, and it certainly can be so in the future.

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.

Let me repeat my stance. You seem to have missed it the last two times:

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.​

I haven't claimed that WotC's behaviour is unethical; I have claimed that a case can be made, and that a blanket "No, it cannot!" is a public disservice.

However, it could certainly be claimed that, by linking to sites containing their IP, and by suggesting that those sites offer support for their IP, they misled consumers as to the support that said customers could expect related to 3e if WotC then ask that support to C&D in order to push another product.

It could certainly be claimed that, by linking to sites containing their IP, and by suggesting that those sites offer support for their IP, they misled the creaters of those sites as to the support level that WotC would find acceptable, and therefore how much they should invest in those sites, if WotC then ask that support to C&D in order to push another product.

And, again, please note that I am talking ethics, not law. "They have a legal right/duty!" is not an answer to a claim about ethics.

It is also, of course, possible to claim that these actions are either not misleading (although the content of this thread suggests to me otherwise, YMMV) or unethical, or both. (Shrug)




RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, you can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

Repeatedly, I have demonstrated where your statements re: ethics are flawed. I haven't seen you answer any of those objections. Raising straw men related to law does not answer a question related to ethics.

Right below the portion you quoted is a non-conflationary example.

And, since you no longer seem to believe that prohibiting the use of property means prohibiting all use, then the only thing left is a sliding scale, the ethics of which is based on subjective scale determined by society. That sliding scale

I never was, RC: as I said last post, we hadn't opened the can of examining the minutiae of the background assumptions of the social contract called "property ownership" until the last few pages.

As for public domain in particular, given the continuing acceleration in the speed of advances in all things IP, it seems to me as if the community is being served pretty well.

Let me repeat my stance. You seem to have missed it the last two times:

. I haven't missed it. I even said debate was necessary. I'm just waiting for something more than discussion of abstractions, IOW, real-world examples RE: WotC's actions. I have only asked that if a case could be made, make the case.

So, RE: WotC recs to CrystalKeep:

I personally never saw them.

Thus, my first line of inquiry would be whether the recommendations were personal or official. IOW, did WotC make the recommendations or subsequently condone them, or instead, were the statements made entirely by employees- regardless of their place in the heirarchy- who were making personal recommendations?

If there were links on WotC's site, were they put there by someone authorized to do so?

If they were not, how long did it take someone who had such authority to become aware that the links were present?

And after that discovery, how long did it take for WotC to act? By that I mean when did they actually start the process of "decoupling," not how long did it take for the results of WotC's actions to be visible to the public. If it took them years to go through their internal process, the flaw is not one of ethical failings, but rather one of inefficient and slow internal procedures...and/or perhaps lax management.

But even so...

To me this is no different than a merchant who says "if you don't want to pay my price for X, you can always try these others..." and then tells you who they are...even including those who sell counterfeits. (This IS a RW example I've run into more than once.)

The counterfeit seller is aware of the recommendations, and is acting in a way that is illegal (he may or may not know it). Given that his business is based on illegal activity, what ethical justification can be offered that he should be allowed to continue it's operations if the legitimate businesses in the same market object?

The merchant finally decides to not recommend the counterfeiter because he feels it is hurting his business. He even notifies that person that if he doesn't stop selling the counterfeits, he will exercise his rights within the law.

The merchant is defending the means by which he earns the money that keeps him fed & sheltered and does so in a civilized way. There is no assault. There is no sabotage. There is merely a demand to stop doing the illegal act harming his business or further (legal, civilized) actions will be taken. How is this unethical?

Or to put it a different way, I'd a C&D letter is unethical, what is?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dannyalcatraz, I think it is better to agree to disagree.

"Given that his business is based on illegal activity", "legitimate businesses", and "his rights within the law" have to do with what is legal. What is legal has to do with what is ethical only if the legal system is perfect. We are not talking the same language, and no matter how many times I try to point that out, it doesn't seem to be getting through.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think the lack of understanding on your side at least mirrors my own.

I'll rephrase:

Given that his business is based on illegal activity

May be read as "his business is based entirely upon the labors and investments of persons he has not compensated" (a.k.a. A freeloader)

legitimate businesses

Is "a business built on the labor and investments of the proprietor and those he has compensated for THEIR labor and investments"

However,

What is legal has to do with what is ethical only if the legal system is perfect.

Is not true since no system is perfect, including ethical systems. If there were a perfect ethical system, it would be the only one. Instead, as pointed out before, there are many, and each may provide answers to ethical quandaries that are at odds with each other. Ask a consequentialist ("ends justifying the means"), a utilitarian ("greatest good for greatest number) a deontologist (duty focused) and a hedonist (greatest good for yourself) the same question and you will get at least 4 different answers.

Instead, the law and ethics intersect like Venn diagrams, the amount of overlap depending on the law in question and your preferred set of ethical lenses.

And that is why I keep asking for specific behaviors and "why" it could be deemed unethical...because until we are arguing about one act in the light of a single ethical system, law is the only common ground of discussion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the lack of understanding on your side at least mirrors my own.

I suppose. We are certainly talking past each other. And, you certainly have't addressed my objections to your statements in a meaningful way.

So, again, I will agree to disagree with you unless something changes.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...you certainly have't addressed my objections to your statements in a meaningful way.

Right back at ya, RC, right back at ya.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I suppose. We are certainly talking past each other. And, you certainly have't addressed my objections to your statements in a meaningful way.

So, again, I will agree to disagree with you unless something changes.

Right back at ya, RC, right back at ya.

...and ... SCENE.

That's a wrap, folks. Clear off the craft services table; we paid for it. Get your coats and leave the lot within the hour. Wrap party at jonesy's place tonight at 9!

 

[El Mahdi]

...Wrap party at jonesy's place tonight at 9!

I hope Gary Busey isn't there this time. He always hogs the crab cakes...