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: 5420981" data-attributes="member: 19675">Right below the portion you quoted is a non-conflationary example.I never was, RC: as I said last post, we hadn't opened the can of examining the minutiae of the background assumptions of the social contract called "property ownership" until the last few pages.As for public domain in particular, given the continuing acceleration in the speed of advances in all things IP, it seems to me as if the community is being served pretty well.. I haven't missed it.  I even said debate was necessary.  I'm just waiting for something more than discussion of abstractions, IOW, real-world examples RE: WotC's actions.  I have only asked that if a case could be made, make the case.So, RE: WotC recs to CrystalKeep:I personally never saw them.Thus, my first line of inquiry would be whether the recommendations were personal or official.  IOW, did WotC make the recommendations or subsequently condone them, or instead, were the statements made entirely by employees- regardless of their place in the heirarchy- who were making personal recommendations?If there were links on WotC's site, were they put there by someone authorized to do so?If they were not, how long did it take someone who had such authority to become aware that the links were present?And after that discovery, how long did it take for WotC to act?  By that I mean  when did they actually start the process of "decoupling," not how long did it take for the results of WotC's actions to be visible to the public.  If it took them years to go through their internal process, the flaw is not one of ethical failings, but rather one of inefficient and slow internal procedures...and/or perhaps lax management.But even so...To me this is no different than a merchant who says "if you don't want to pay my price for X, you can always try these others..." and then tells you who they are...even including those who sell counterfeits.  (This IS a RW example I've run into more than once.)The counterfeit seller is aware of the recommendations, and is acting in a way that is illegal (he may or may not know it).  Given that his business is based on illegal activity, what ethical justification can be offered that he should be allowed to continue it's operations if the legitimate businesses in the same market object?The merchant finally decides to not recommend the counterfeiter because he feels it is hurting his business.  He even notifies that person that if he doesn't stop selling the counterfeits, he will exercise his rights within the law.The merchant is defending the means by which he earns the money that keeps him fed & sheltered and does so in a civilized way.  There is no assault.  There is no sabotage.  There is merely a demand to stop doing the illegal act harming his business or further (legal, civilized) actions will be taken.  How is this unethical?Or to put it a different way, I'd a C&D letter is unethical, what is?</blockquote>

Verification