The only difference of qualification between P2P muds and free muds that I see here is that free muds are 1) losing advertising space due to P2P occupation and, 2) P2P muds are getting more money for free.
If there are is one remaining stall at a marketplace and I wish to sell my goods at this stall, and another person wants to give his goods away at this same stall, why does the fact that the person who wants to sell his goods change the morality of his occupying that stall? Likewise, why does the fact that a mud is P2P change the morality of their occupying a space?
If it's really because "they're getting more money", we'd have to write this argument off as ridiculous. Because there are countless situations in which people would be considered immoral in your eyes: If any business wanted to STAY moral with these qualifications, they would have to give up any limited resource as soon as someone who wants to give their services away for free competed for those resources. Needless to say, the effects of your justification would be disastrous.
|