|
Ok, so then you can either look at it from a moral point of view if your moral worldview even recognizes the existence of intellectual property (there's certainly nothing about intellectual property that renders it as an inviolate concept morally) or a legal point of view.
If minimal harm is suffered, what's the moral justification for all the outrage?
If it's a legal thing, where's the outrage against the numerous MUDs violating things like the Lucas license? Morally you can make the argument that they are fan fiction and thus ok (even if, in the case of Lucas, his license specifically prohibits running computer services using his IP) but legally one cannot.
I mean, it seems like either you accept that minimal harm is being done in BOTH the cases of Medievia and Shadows of Isildur pre-arrangement-with-Tolkien-Enterprises (and the many other MUDs in similar situations) and thus morally it's pretty much a non-issue or you take a legal tact and decide they're both guilty of violating IP law.
Also, you wrote that it might make a good case, but just because something will make a good case doesn't mean it's warranted either (The legal advice I've gotten has indicated it wouldn't make a good case at all, but 2 lawyers never agree on anything. It's a moot point either way apparently.) I know you're studying to be a lawyer, but I'd personally be a lot happier if there WEREN'T so many lawyers encouraging people to sue each other just because it's possible to do so.
--matt
|