Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Androrc" data-source="post: 5420155" data-attributes="member: 6667492">I was actually responding to billd91 on that one.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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification