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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5420283" data-attributes="member: 19675">No it doesn't.Even if its own laws do not specifically state that it can do so, a state can ethically justify forcible redistribution of things like food or shelter in protecting the interests of its citizens because those things are utterly essential to human survival.There is no ethical analog here.  Non-essentials are nice.  They enrich our lives.  We are better off for having them.  But there is no justification for the state to force someone to supply...say...an RPG.Not true.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.Quote:At no point did I use the absolute term "all"- as previously stated, all property is a social construct, and those noted exceptions are enumerated within the laws of property.  (Indeed, upthread I posted information about the divisible bundle of rights that exist in real property when talking about "surface estates", "mineral estates" and "estates entire," sorry you missed it.)And with each of those exceptions, the burden of proof lies upon the person or entity relying on the exception because the default presumption is that of exclusion.Quote:Again, this is an exception already extant within the rules of the social construct within IP laws, so not worth covering explicitly.Again, make the case: what have they done that rises to the level of being unethical?Well, this:There is no supportable ethical position that forces another to provide you with non-essentials.I believe we've lost each other here, because I'm not following your inquiry and the slavery to which I referred was in forcing someone to work to supply you with non-essentials.This, again, is part of the background assumptions of IP that up until now we were not discussing.  To the best of my knowledge, WotC has NOT removed or attempted to remove from the market of ideas anything that has fallen into public domain.I don't understand where you're going here.  We've been discussing whether its ethical to withdraw something non-essential from the market and/or withhold it from ever being released.You have freedom to say that, absolutely.  Discourse is essential to a functioning society.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.</blockquote>

Verification