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="Androrc" data-source="post: 5420013" data-attributes="member: 6667492">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.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.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)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.</blockquote>

Verification