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: 5419916" data-attributes="member: 19675">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification