You don't see something inherently wrong with changing the name of a spell in what's being sold as a historical document without any notation at all? They are basically acting like that other spell name never existed and even in 1975 people used the spell name "Obey Me!"

As far as whether the property belongs to a company originally or was acquired later as long as they own it they can do whatever they want to it it's really irrelevant whether were talking about Flying Buffalo or Wizards of the Coast

Quote from: Omega;1142495With FB and T&T though it is the companies own game. Not something they acquired vial absorbing another company. And oddly I thought they had changed the name of that spell already in later editions? I'd have to dig mine out and check.

Yassa-Massa is in 5th, totally removed in 7th and Deluxe for whatever reason. "They can do whatever they want" is a bad argument if I'm buying something specifically because it's a piece of history. The only reason I have the PDF of 1st is because it's a historical artifact; I don't ever intend to actually play it. If they're changing stuff from 1975 because some jackass in 2020 MIGHT get offended at a spell name obviously meant to be a silly homage to cartoons and old movies, that is very disturbing.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1142471I think there's an important distinction to make about an individual's personal property or real estate.

Legally they are the same, and for good reason. Whether you are using bricks or words, property is property and you have the right to sell and make money off your hard labor. If you want the laws changed, that's well and good. But I would not want the government or mob telling me what to do with my own property, whether I built it (or wrote it) or not. A legal acquisition should be afforded the same rights. That's how capitalism and property rights work.

Quote from: Shasarak;1142474It seems more similar to buying a house and then telling all of your guests how stupid the decor is and how much you hate it and how you think that it is just so ugly that you can not even believe it.

Free speech is free speech, I suppose. But that's a good analogy.

Quote from: Omega;1142479Its an acquisition. Its not a game they made. There is a difference here.

Legally, it's the exact same thing, as it should be. I would not want the government or mob telling me what to do with my own property, whether I built (or wrote) it or not. If that's something you'd like to change, that's a different issue.

Quote from: Omega;1142479And if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem. Thats fine. Stop trying to tell the rest of us there is no problem.

First, don't tell me what to do or what I'm allowed to say. Second, there isn't a problem. Companies can and should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their property. I would want the same freedoms afforded to myself which is why it's important to protect owner's rights in all markets. If you disagree, that's fine. If I buy something, I would want to control it, period, without any outside interference, governmental or otherwise.

Quote from: Brad;1142505"They can do whatever they want" is a bad argument if I'm buying something specifically because it's a piece of history.

The only other alternative is that all art and historic artifacts may never be purchased or sold. That's goes against free-market capitalism in such an extreme manner that I can't support that. If I wrote something, I'd want to own it for the rest or my life and if I sold it or willed it away, I'd want that party to make their own decisions, since that was my choice.

If instead, I decided to donate it to a museum or release it to the public, that again, is my choice. But I shouldn't be forced to do so by the government or an internet mob. When art is sold, whether or not it eventually becomes "history" is impossible to predict or define. If I wrote or acquired (i.e., paid good money for it in an open transaction) something and I suddenly wasn't able to legally make money off it anymore, I'd be pissed, and so would anyone else.

"Oh, that legal investment you made years ago? Sorry, it's now classified as historical art. We'll take that from you now. Have a nice day!" -Orwellian nightmare

Quote from: HappyDaze;1142366Says the dipshit fuckwit that wants people to buy into this nothingburger scam. Enjoy the sweet taste of your paranoia.

Logic and evidence are so scarce that it is refreshing so see someone use such a pure ad hominem.

Quote from: Kael;1142510Legally they are the same, and for good reason. Whether you are using bricks or words, property is property and you have the right to sell and make money off your hard labor. If you want the laws changed, that's well and good. But I would not want the government or mob telling me what to do with my own property, whether I built it (or wrote it) or not. A legal acquisition should be afforded the same rights. That's how capitalism and property rights work.

I don't necessarily want any laws changed. (Though extensive gaming of copyright laws might be first on the list for review) I'm saying that a dude can do whatever with his house. But if he's going to rent out a room, or put the property up for rent, the decor might have more things to consider than just his personal taste.

If a company wants to sell a product, they're in a similar situation. They can sell whatever they want, and advertise it however they want, but the buying public and customer happiness is always a consideration if the company wants to be sucessful.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1142531If a company wants to sell a product, they're in a similar situation. They can sell whatever they want, and advertise it however they want, but the buying public and customer happiness is always a consideration if the company wants to be sucessful.

I agree with this, of course. The copyright date alone should be enough of a warning label, if such a thing is really necessary.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1142531I don't necessarily want any laws changed. (Though extensive gaming of copyright laws might be first on the list for review) I'm saying that a dude can do whatever with his house. But if he's going to rent out a room, or put the property up for rent, the decor might have more things to consider than just his personal taste.

If a company wants to sell a product, they're in a similar situation. They can sell whatever they want, and advertise it however they want, but the buying public and customer happiness is always a consideration if the company wants to be sucessful.

I'm not sure how they're advertising it, but if it's claimed that the 1st edition PDF is a historical artifact exactly as it was published, and it's changed without note or explanation, then that could be a case of false advertising. In general, I dislike editing historical artifacts, but it's objectively bad if it's being falsely advertised.

That said, a number of posters are saying that adding a disclaimer or introduction is somehow similar to or equivalent to editing the historical artifact, but they're completely different. For example, there's no comparison between adding an extra to a DVD or a disclaimer screen at the start (standard for most films) and something like George Lucas' editing of the Star Wars original films.

Quote from: jhkim;1142540That said, a number of posters are saying that adding a disclaimer or introduction is somehow similar to or equivalent to editing the historical artifact, but they're completely different. For example, there's no comparison between adding an extra to a DVD or a disclaimer screen at the start (standard for most films) and something like George Lucas' editing of the Star Wars original films.

My complaint is that the disclaimers are hyperbolic, over-generalized and open to abuse by social justice moral busybodies who have an inerpretation of offensive that likely does not match the general perception.
I can see the argument that the disclaimers do change the content by attempting to portray it in a certain framework, instead of letting the reader make up their own mind about how to interpret it.

And the Special Editions are a travesty, but that's a seperate topic better addressed in the movies section of the forum.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1142541And the Special Editions are a travesty, but that's a seperate topic better addressed in the movies section of the forum.

That's a statement with a likely 99.9% approval rating. There is only one fan of the not-so-special editions and his name rhymes with George Lucas.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1142541My complaint is that the disclaimers are hyperbolic, over-generalized and open to abuse by social justice moral busybodies who have an inerpretation of offensive that likely does not match the general perception.
I can see the argument that the disclaimers do change the content by attempting to portray it in a certain framework, instead of letting the reader make up their own mind about how to interpret it.

And the Special Editions are a travesty, but that's a seperate topic better addressed in the movies section of the forum.

That's true.  But it's also true that a preface or introduction to any classic text by someone other than the writer or a close contemporary is rarely worth reading, especially not before reading the classic yourself.  It's not unheard of for the good intro to exist, but hardly the norm.  I had more than one quality English professor insist that we not read such commentary until after everyone in the class had read the book a couple of times, discussed it in class, then at least started a draft on whatever paper we were doing.   And that was for the good intros.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1142582...I had more than one quality English professor insist that we not read such commentary until after everyone in the class had read the book a couple of times, discussed it in class, then at least started a draft on whatever paper we were doing.   And that was for the good intros.

That is a perfect example of the type of caliber of teachers we should have in places of higher learning.
Too bad there have been so many examples of the faculty being forced to acquiesce to ridiculous measures as to not offer any modicum of debate in their hallowed halls.

I can think of one university nearby me that had a perfect example of failing this basic tenet of free-thought in an academic environment but not going to derail the thread.

Aren't RPG's popular with the college and university kids?  Where did their willingness to be tolerant and open-minded disappear to?  I thought those were useful attributes for roleplaying.

Quote from: Kael;1142510Legally they are the same, and for good reason. Whether you are using bricks or words, property is property and you have the right to sell and make money off your hard labor. If you want the laws changed, that's well and good. But I would not want the government or mob telling me what to do with my own property, whether I built it (or wrote it) or not. A legal acquisition should be afforded the same rights. That's how capitalism and property rights work.



Free speech is free speech, I suppose. But that's a good analogy.



Legally, it's the exact same thing, as it should be. I would not want the government or mob telling me what to do with my own property, whether I built (or wrote) it or not. If that's something you'd like to change, that's a different issue.



First, don't tell me what to do or what I'm allowed to say. Second, there isn't a problem. Companies can and should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their property. I would want the same freedoms afforded to myself which is why it's important to protect owner's rights in all markets. If you disagree, that's fine. If I buy something, I would want to control it, period, without any outside interference, governmental or otherwise.

Ethics are not the same thing as rights.  It is not ethical to cheat on one's spouse.  We are however free to do so, in part because the imposition of state force into one's private life in such a way is unnacceptable.

We can debate whether a company should be free to do something seperately to the ethic obligations that should hold.

It doesn't seem to me inherently unreasonable that buying an intellectual property places different ethical obliations on one then having been the creator.  "Property is property" is unsatisfactory because the very idea that cultural expression is property is a kludge.  It's basically utilising a metaphor because it's necessary to ensure that cultural creators can actually be paid and therefore there is an incentive to create.

Quote from: Kael;1142510The only other alternative is that all art and historic artifacts may never be purchased or sold. That's goes against free-market capitalism in such an extreme manner that I can't support that. If I wrote something, I'd want to own it for the rest or my life and if I sold it or willed it away, I'd want that party to make their own decisions, since that was my choice.

If instead, I decided to donate it to a museum or release it to the public, that again, is my choice. But I shouldn't be forced to do so by the government or an internet mob. When art is sold, whether or not it eventually becomes "history" is impossible to predict or define. If I wrote or acquired (i.e., paid good money for it in an open transaction) something and I suddenly wasn't able to legally make money off it anymore, I'd be pissed, and so would anyone else.

"Oh, that legal investment you made years ago? Sorry, it's now classified as historical art. We'll take that from you now. Have a nice day!" -Orwellian nightmare

It's not a binary with only two alternatives.  I don't have a problem with Academic books being significantly altered for a second edition because new research has been done.  This is expected and in fact it's clear practice that it's almost always labelled as such and the changes are explicitly pointed to.  And I don't have a problem with Directors Cuts of movies as long as no attempt is made to completely bury the orignal theatrical release.

If WOTC were to decide that there was a market for a re-released re-edited and cleaned up version of 1e and were to republish Oriental Adventures with changes as "Asian Adventures" then I wouldn't have a particular issue with it (at least not with the simple fact of doing it), so long as they are clear that what they are publishing is a revised edition.

As often, we have little choice to resort to something like the "reasonable person" criteria often used in law (as unsatisfactory as it is).  To me the question is, could a reasonable person be expected to easily recognise that something they are purchasing is not in it's original historical form?

I'd add that the ethics of this are being changed by the internet so we need to be constantly rethinking aspects of this - not just assuming that pre-internet rules hold.  Not only does the internet make it substantially easier and less onerous to maintain the historical record, it also makes it easier revise it to those not looking to closely (Kindle have the power to edit ebooks that are downloaded onto peoples devises for example).

Quote from: TJS;1142597Ethics are not the same thing as rights.

I agree. Ethics are personal and subjective. Rights are universal and inalienable. Ethics are much like opinions: worthless but fun to discuss.

Quote from: TJS;1142597We can debate whether a company should be free to do something to the ethic obligations that should hold.

Of course. I'm pretty sure that's what we are doing.

Quote from: TJS;1142597It doesn't seem to me inherently unreasonable that buying an intellectual property places different ethical obliations on one then having been the creator.  "Property is property" is unsatisfactory because the very idea that cultural expression is property is a kludge.

Except the property was voluntarily sold. If there is any ethical responsibility, it's with the side giving up their IP for money knowing what could happen as a result.

If I buy the IP to Monopoly, and I decide to change "Boardwalk" to "Buttwalk" on every new edition until the sun explodes, does that make me an asshole? Yes, yes it does. Would I support the right to do so? Yes, yes I would.

Quote from: TJS;1142597To me the question is, could a reasonable person be expected to easily recognise that something they are purchasing is not in it's original historical form?

Just check the copyright date. That should be easy enough for anyone old enough to read.

Quote from: Kael;1142614If I buy the IP to Monopoly, and I decide to change "Boardwalk" to "Buttwalk" on every new edition until the sun explodes, does that make me an asshole? Yes, yes it does. Would I support the right to do so? Yes, yes I would.

There are so many different versions of Monopoly already produced that there is a non zero chance that "Boardwalk" has been changed to "Buttwalk"

Quote from: Kael;1142614I agree. Ethics are personal and subjective. Rights are universal and inalienable. Ethics are much like opinions: worthless but fun to discuss.

Ok this is fucking stupid.