Russ Taylor wrote:
>
> On 9/8/00 1:46 PM, Lizard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
>
> >It is quite simple.
>
> Not really.
>
> >There is no moral or ethical obligation to pass on work derived from
> >material in the public domain -- since anyone can access the same source
> >material freely.
>
> This same argument applies exactly to your paragraph below: you got it
> for free, so pass it on for free (note that "free" monetary is different
> from "free" unrestricted -- both apply to this case).
>
Ah, but the issue isn't what you paid for it -- it's the source.
If I pick an apple from a tree in an unclaimed forest, I am taking
nothing from anyone, and incur no ethical debt. On the other hand, if
someone in an act of generosit gives me an apple he owns, I feel there
is an ethical obligation involved -- either to the giver, or, in a
spirit of giving, to some other person down the line.
<deletia>
>
> Disney in particular has produced a huge dividend by mining the public
> domain, and used litigation or the threat of such to keep their resulting
> works protected. I've often thought that Disney was rather ungenerous in
> doing so, but I don't think it's strictly unethical -- just unattractive
> to see.
>
It is unattractive and unethical, but not illegal.
> >In other words, since WOTC did not actually 'receive' any freedoms from
> >the non-owners of public domain works, they, in turn, do not have any
> >freedom to 'pass on'. Since the creators of material derived from
> >copyrighted and trademarks works ARE receiving freedom, they, in turn,
> >are morally obliged to pass it on.
>
> Sure they did. You receive the ultimate in "free" on public domain
> works. The freedom to create unlimited and unrestricted derivative
> content, and limit and restrict that new content in any way you see fit.
> That's a tremendous boon.
>
But it is not a boon granted by anyone. It's the beginning of property
rights.
That is, ownership is granted by taking unowned material and adding
value to it. An empty field, an unmined mountain, or an idea passed into
the public domain is material in a state of nature. When you add value
to it, you gain rightful ownership of it -- and may then do with it as
you please, subject to the usual blend of law and ethics.
I have no more obligation to share with you my take on 'Snow White' than
I do to share the takings from a mine I dug myself. However, if I choose
to LET you use my property, I feel you have aquired an ethical, though
not legal, obligation to pass this along.
> >Fairly simple, really. Unless you go with the anti-propertarian concept
> >that there is no such thing as intellectual property, since every
> >creator is a product of his culture, and culture belongs to The Masses.
>
> That's inserting "oranges" into an "apples" debate.
Not really, since you used this argument above when you invoked the
cultural gestalt. One cannot 'owe' anything to nonexistent entities,
such as 'society', 'the people', 'humankind', etc. Nor can one BE OWED
something by same.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
