Quote from: sharps54;1142497You don't see something inherently wrong with changing the name of a spell in what's being sold as a historical document without any notation at all?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!"

It bugs me more that its not being done for any altruistic reasons. Its just bending knee to the mob. Again.

If theydd said ""hey. Theres some stuff in the original that we arent to proud of now. So heres a choice of the original or the revised original." that would have been fine.

If any of you care about a particular book remaining available in its original form, today we have the technology that can make that happen. If its important to you, make the effort. Don't expect others will do it for you.

Quote from: Kael;1142614SNIP
Just check the copyright date. That should be easy enough for anyone old enough to read.

Except in the case of the Tunnels & Trolls PDFs they haven't added a new copyright date. For example the last date in the 5th edition PDF is 'Third Printing 1980' even though the text was modified last month.

Quote from: sharps54;1142642Except in the case of the Tunnels & Trolls PDFs they haven't added a new copyright date. For example the last date in the 5th edition PDF is 'Third Printing 1980' even though the text was modified last month.

Well that's very misleading. Maybe UK copyright laws are more lax than the US ones?

Quote from: TJS;1142624Ok this is fucking stupid.

Explain the stupidity please. Ethics are relative to the individual. You disagree?

What's ethical to me and mine may not be ethical to you and yours. That's freshmen level philosophy right there.

Quote from: Kael;1142676Explain the stupidity please. Ethics are relative to the individual. You disagree?

What's ethical to me and mine may not be ethical to you and yours. That's freshmen level philosophy right there.

Professions and other organizations also define ethical standards that go beyond those of their individual members.

I don't know about UK laws but Flying Buffalo Inc is an American company

Quote from: Kael;1142675Well that's very misleading. Maybe UK copyright laws are more lax than the US ones?

Beats me but Flying Buffalo is an American company

Quote from: Kael;1142676Explain the stupidity please. Ethics are relative to the individual. You disagree?

What's ethical to me and mine may not be ethical to you and yours. That's freshmen level philosophy right there.

Personally, I'm still chewing on your post. What struck me is calling ethics "worthless".

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1142680What struck me is calling ethics "worthless".

By worthless I just mean subjective like all opinions. Most opinions hold little value to me, hence worthless.

My point is that since what's ethical to party A might be reasonably deemed unethical to party  B that makes the whole argument rather pointless and an exercise in futility.

If I make an investment to feed my family, and someone thinks that what I'm doing with my investment is "unethical" then to me their opinion is worthless.

My rights, on the other hand, are subject to agreed upon contractual laws and not some mob's personal ethics.

Again, ethics/morals/opinions can be an entertaining navel-gazing excercise, but they don't hold much value to me since they are ever-changing and subject to all sorts of bias

On the other hand, many people subscribe to the theory that "everything is politics" which is both true and false.

WOTC putting a disclaimer on their property is "political" to some. WOTC remaining silent on their property is "political" to others. Everybody else in the middle doesn't doesn't care one way or the other because a used market exists and PDFs can be trivially changed.

Personally, I wouldn't put in the disclaimer. That's my opinion which I realize is totally worthless since it's not my property and I support their right to do whatever they want.

Greetings!

Well, Ethics are not "relative" and "individual". Ethics are universal and timeless, and apply and are embraced everywhere. *Morals* on the other hand, are somewhat relative and localized, to a particular area, people, or time, and also may change through such time and place. For example, it is universal that the State possesses the power, right, and duty, to restrain evil, punish criminals, and even execute such criminals. This ethic is reflected in the Bible, as well as other religions, throughout the world, and across thousands of years, with very little deviation. However, we have changed our morals about how executions are carried out. We don't stretch fucking traitors on the wrack and pour molten silver down their throats, or throw them into a huge cauldron of bubbling hot water to poach them to death in screaming agony. But that is an example of changing morality. Instead, now we electrocute them, inject them with lethal poison, or shoot them by swift firing squad.

Before anyone whines like a contrarian jackass, yes, there's always individual people, isolated communes, fringe religious cults, or even a few cultures that embrace some taboo or disregard some universal ethic, though they are exceptions, not the rule. Cultures embrace integrity, honesty, faithfulness, wives being faithful to their husbands, parents taking care of their children, a family taking care of an elderly family member, fair and honest trade, children honouring their parents, prohibitions against murder, theft, lying against a neighbor, lying in court, child sex, incest. Any of these universal ethics apply virtually everywhere in the world. Try openly indulging or pursuing any of these things, from America, to Russia, India, China, Africa, Europe, South America, Mexico, Australia. The local response will not be approving, I'm sure.

WOTC can change whatever they want with the official books. They own the intellectual property. However, the local morality of the consumer base, particularly here in the United States, embraces a historical *morality* that historical texts and such should remain the same, and not "cleansed" or altered to fit some current ideology. Local morals about how businesses treat products, how they treat consumers, and how they generally go about business is very important, and going in violation of such morals can easily cause a company to go bankrupt, or be hostilely taken over by a new management leadership that does not want the company and its heritage to be destroyed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kael;1142676Explain the stupidity please. Ethics are relative to the individual. You disagree?

What's ethical to me and mine may not be ethical to you and yours. That's freshmen level philosophy right there.

You must have failed freshman philosophy, then...

Quote from: Kael;1142510Whether you are using bricks or words, property is property

Intellectual property isn't a legal concept, it's a turn of phrase. It refers to copyrights, patents and trademarks which are all very different from each other and nothing like property laws.

Quote from: SHARK;1142692Well, Ethics are not "relative" and "individual". Ethics are universal and timeless, and apply and are embraced everywhere. *Morals* on the other hand, are somewhat relative and localized, to a particular area, people, or time, and also may change through such time and place.

This is just flat out wrong.

Ethics and morals are the same thing. Use a dictionary.

Some people distinguish ethics as pertaining to the individual and morals as pertaining to a society or culture, but regardless they are the same not universal nor timeless.

Quote from: Brad;1142693You must have failed freshman philosophy, then...

I didn't. Morals being relative is the core philosophical lesson of entry-level courses.

Please tell me the nonreligious reasons why morals or ethics are absolute.

Quote from: Mr_X;1142698Intellectual property isn't a legal concept, it's a turn of phrase. It refers to copyrights, patents and trademarks which are all very different from each other and nothing like property laws.

I agree. It's just a shorthand to save my fingers the typing. Property rights and "copy" rights are different in many ways.

Quote from: Kael;1142701This is just flat out wrong.

Ethics and morals are the same thing. Use a dictionary.

Some people distinguish ethics as pertaining to the individual and morals as pertaining to a society or culture, but regardless they are the same not universal nor timeless.



I didn't. Morals being relative is the core philosophical lesson of entry-level courses.

Please tell me the nonreligious reasons why morals or ethics are absolute.




I agree. It's just a shorthand to save my fingers the typing. Property rights and "copy" rights are different in many ways.

Greetings!

I disagree. My philosophy class distinguished Ethics being different from Morals. The idea of "Moral Relativism" is cultural poison. Ethics come from God. Otherwise, if everything is merely relative, then such an argument only appeals to might and is just a dressed up version of the law of the jungle. Person A can kill person B because. There is objective truth, and moral absolutes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK