I just can't get onboard with the premise that corporations are bad or evil, or whatever other negative adjectives you'd like to use.

Quote from: TristramEvans;815803Now, there's a blatant lie.

Well you keep claiming that despite their convictions at Nuremberg as war criminals they weren't war criminals. That sure sounds like an apologist to me.

   apoglogist: a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

But then you probably thought apologists just apologize for other people. :rolleyes:

no need to kick him when he's down.

Quote from: Bren;815805Well you keep claiming that despite their convictions at Nuremberg as war criminals they weren't war criminals. That sure sounds like an apologist to me.

   apoglogist: a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

But then you probably thought apologists just apologize for other people. :rolleyes:

Nope, I claimed that everyone at Nuremberg was as morally culpable as anyone else despite their level of actual involvement, which has been my argument from day one. So, since that's what you have been arguing against for several days, I guess I should ask you, why are you a Nazi apologist Bren?

(yes, I know, I am really gone now, just got out of the shower. How is this thread still open?)

Quote from: TristramEvans;815809Nope, I claimed that everyone at Nuremberg was as morally culpable as anyone else despite their level of actual involvement, which has been my argument from day one.

You keep saying they aren't war criminals. Here's where you actually said it the first time.

Quote from: TristramEvans;815764Hans Fritzsche, Walther Funk, Gustav Krupp, Robert Ley, Baron Von Neurath, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, Julius Streicher, Albert Speer

None of them war criminals. Your knowledge of history is as lacking as your ability to process metaphors on a grade school level.

Almost all of those Nazis were war criminals and they were convicted as such because of their culpability as Nazi leaders and important officials of the Third Reich.

Now you may have meant to claim that every German citizen or that every one of the 8 million members of the Nazi party in 1945 are all equally guilty as those Nazi leaders and government officials. But that's not what you actually said.

Now if that was your point it is ethically idiotic, but it would at least be consistent with your idiotic notion that every shareholder should be legally liable for the actions of a corporation in which they own one share of stock.

Quote from: rawma;815693You describe a deal that explains copyright, that creators are granting eventual entry to the public domain in return for protection of their right in the near term; then you're surprised that this is understood to mean that you believe that, in the absence of copyright, they have an eternal natural right and are only giving up the tail end of that in return for what copyright offers them. This is the biased framing in your posts that both jhkim and I pointed out.

Quote from: Bren;815741OK. For the sake of argument let's say that I am biased towards the notion that inventors actually invented what they invented.

If you're going to accept something "for the sake of argument", you really should be rephrasing something that I said or at least implied, not creating a bizarre strawman. Pretending that "invented what they invented" is somehow equivalent to "have an eternal natural right" demonstrates your bias. Clearly you do indeed believe in an eternal natural right for creators. Have the courage to stand by your beliefs honestly instead of trying to sneak them into a discussion.

(And when did the discussion turn to "inventions", which are subject to patents? Or are you claiming that authors "invent" books?)

Quote from: Endless Flight;815804I just can't get onboard with the premise that corporations are bad or evil, or whatever other negative adjectives you'd like to use.

Probably not the corps themselves, aside from Games Workshop. But often there seems to creep in a sort of corruption at the managerial level. I'd lay good odds that the AS/E higher ups had no idea what was going on at the plant. (Not a game related corp but.)

On the other hand WOTC and GW were well aware they were killing off local FLGS with how they were running the WOTC/GW shops.

This has got to be one of the worst thread derails we've ever had, and judging by one or two posts recently, actually done on purpose by Tristram.

Nope. You don't get to try to get a thread shut down after you've been the one to derail it.

Next person to carry on this derail gets to answer to Pundit for willful site disruption. Geddit?

Trying to get back on topic..

I am torn between two points of view on WotC (or any RPG publisher) shutting down the little guy's "value added" stuff.

On the one hand, if there was infringement, then it should be taken down, and they probably have to demand it be taken down or risk someone arguing that later infringements were fair use because earlier equivalent infringements weren't objected to. (I believe that unlike trademarks you can't lose a copyright by inaction, but fair use is already pretty nebulous.)

On the other hand, I would like some recourse to address market failures; I'd like a character generating program, but it's not worth writing one for my own private use. People can write generic adventures or settings that are fairly easy to adapt, but reference materials in more convenient forms are too specific to be non-infringing. So I would like to know how legally to prod WotC to make such things available.

On the third hand, ... out of hands and topic, so I'll leave it there.

Quote from: rawma;815823Trying to get back on topic..

I am torn between two points of view on WotC (or any RPG publisher) shutting down the little guy's "value added" stuff.

On the one hand, if there was infringement, then it should be taken down, and they probably have to demand it be taken down or risk someone arguing that later infringements were fair use because earlier equivalent infringements weren't objected to. (I believe that unlike trademarks you can't lose a copyright by inaction, but fair use is already pretty nebulous.)

On the other hand, I would like some recourse to address market failures; I'd like a character generating program, but it's not worth writing one for my own private use. People can write generic adventures or settings that are fairly easy to adapt, but reference materials in more convenient forms are too specific to be non-infringing. So I would like to know how legally to prod WotC to make such things available.

On the third hand, ... out of hands and topic, so I'll leave it there.

Until they decide on an OGL of some sort, we're pretty much reduced to making our own for private use. Me, I'd like them to allow Lone Wolf to put out a module for 5e, but I suspect it'd be like the 4e one in which you had to get a sub to WotC's site to access the actual data.

Then again, Paizo never seems to have any issues with letting Lone Wolf have their data...

Just dont call it a D&D character generator. Something like "compatible with" or who knows. Not like that would save you if they so deemed.

Or in the OP case. Ask whats needed to bring it in line? Or would they be interested in picking it up or hosting it even?

I like to call D&D "The Least Obscure Fantasy Roleplaying Game".

"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles.  When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." - Maud dib

Quote from: flyerfan1991;815828Until they decide on an OGL of some sort, we're pretty much reduced to making our own for private use. Me, I'd like them to allow Lone Wolf to put out a module for 5e, but I suspect it'd be like the 4e one in which you had to get a sub to WotC's site to access the actual data.

Then again, Paizo never seems to have any issues with letting Lone Wolf have their data...

How hard would it be to recreate 5th using the existing OGL?

Quote from: Endless Flight;815804I just can't get onboard with the premise that corporations are bad or evil, or whatever other negative adjectives you'd like to use.

People look for heroes and villains. The alternative is to face the terrifying reality that the systems that govern our societies are not driven by human agency. Or rather, that those systems are driven by the aggregate agency of hundreds of millions of individuals acting with little understanding of the consequences of their choices.

Quote from: Endless Flight;815804I just can't get onboard with the premise that corporations are bad or evil, or whatever other negative adjectives you'd like to use.

"amoral" would be more accurate, for the most part. There are very few that are actively "evil" in any meaningful sense (Monsanto). I think its enough, though, to say that on the whole they are not "good", without it necessary to quantify that any further.

I'm pretty neutral on Hasbro and WotC. They represent a side of the hobby that has no interest to me, but I'm not actively opposed to anything they've done (except charge exorbitant amounts for oop TSR products on pdf).