NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5418891" data-attributes="member: 19675">RPGs are a luxury.  It's nice they exist, but if they vanished tomorrow, people would still find food, shelter and, amazingly, other forms of entertainment.  They are NOT harming the public good by removing their products from the market.  Indeed, one of the cornerstone rights of property ownership of any kind is the right to restrict access.  This enables the owner to set a price, and thus, establish a market.  If the price is too high, it may not sell; if no price is set, no third party has the right to then strip the property owner of his right (except in the recognized area of necessities to survival). Absolutely and unequivocally no.  As stated above, the restriction of access is fundamental to the concept of private ownership of property.Until something is sold or given to you, you do not own it.  Nobody makes this kind of anti-ownership argument except in the case of IP (or to justify variations of Communism).  You cannot justify the position that denial of access to a non-essential product is a moral right or is "abusive".As for "the free flow of information"?  That is a slippery slope that would devalue any IP you'd care to name.  History has shown us multiple times that he greatest rate of home-grown advancements in technology exists in countries that protect IP rights the most rigorously.  Russia stagnated vis a vis the West until Peter the Great instituted certain changes that protected the rights of inventors at the national level (not as good as in the West, but better than "self-help" which had been the rule before).  More recently, China has had to crack down on some of the pirates that Western businesses have been complaining about for decades because the pirates had broadened their operations to include Chinese businesses (which started to fail at alarming rates).What IS abusive to the good of society is the disregard of the rules by which we allow persons to benefit from the product of their efforts.Hence my McRib analogy.  No one would seriously assert that, once the McRib was created that society at large had a right to have McRibs; McDonalds is free to remove it from the market at will.  They also have a right (to anwer RC) to prevent someone from releasing a product identical to the McRib or to use "McRib" to describe their product...but CANNOT  prevent someone from making their own rib sandwich with a different recipe & name.</blockquote>

Verification