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="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5420719" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, you can say that, but it doesn't make it true.  Repeatedly, I have demonstrated where your statements re: ethics are flawed.  I haven't seen you answer any of those objections.  Raising straw men related to law does not answer a question related to ethics.  We could, of course, get into a debate about the ethics of slavery, but that is hardly necessary, as freedom from slavery is not essential for human survival and therefore the State has no business supplying it.  If I accept the argument you made regarding ethics upthread, anyway.....which I do not.  In any event, there is a major difference between "forcing someone to supply IP" and saying that it is not ethical to not supply certain IP.....for the blatantly obvious reason that saying "X is not ethical" forces no one to not-X.There is also a major difference between "forcing someone to supply IP" and granting that some portion of IP becomes public domain as a consequence of its being supplied.And, since you no longer seem to believe that prohibiting the use of property means prohibiting all use, then the only thing left is a sliding scale, the ethics of which is based on subjective scale determined by society.  That sliding scale has been more in favour of the public domain in the past, and it certainly can be so in the future.Let me repeat my stance.  You seem to have missed it the last two times: There is a legitimate debate as to the ethical quality of WotC's behaviour in this case. Indeed, there is never a case where examining/debating the ethics of any behaviour by anyone is illegitimate. The primary legal duty of a corporation is to make the most money possible for its shareholders. This is not, and should never be considered, the primary ethical responsibility of anyone or anything.I haven't claimed that WotC's behaviour is unethical; I have claimed that a case can be made, and that a blanket "No, it cannot!" is a public disservice.However, it could certainly be claimed that, by linking to sites containing their IP, and by suggesting that those sites offer support for their IP, they misled consumers as to the support that said customers could expect related to 3e if WotC then ask that support to C&D in order to push another product.It could certainly be claimed that, by linking to sites containing their IP, and by suggesting that those sites offer support for their IP, they misled the creaters of those sites as to the support level that WotC would find acceptable, and therefore how much they should invest in those sites, if WotC then ask that support to C&D in order to push another product.And, again, please note that I am talking ethics, not law.  "They have a legal right/duty!" is not an answer to a claim about ethics.  It is also, of course, possible to claim that these actions are either not misleading (although the content of this thread suggests to me otherwise, YMMV) or unethical, or both.  (Shrug)RC</blockquote>

Verification