And where did I claim that you had the right to give permission? We are well within our rights in discussing the harm and benefit of our actions. What was disturbing was your statement that we had no right to do this. Perhaps you mis-stated something, then.
This is simply not true: I don't know if I have permission to derive a great many works, and I'm sure that at least some creators would expressly grant me these rights. One can have absolutely no clue that they have permission to do certain things. You're also completely ruling out the creators that turn a blind eye, so to speak, to derivative works. Many authors don't explicitly grant licenses, but they don't forbid it either. This neutral path suits them just fine: If they explicitly granted them, they would be bogged down with the requests and tracking them if they decided to sell their IP. If they explicitly forbade them, they would alienate a portion of their fanbase.
So, um, what is your point? =)
You don't seem to understand that I'm arguing ethics and morality, not legality.
Yes, and we all know how their statistics have been in these matters. But that's another thread and besides the point. You failed to respond to my points that we can have a good idea about what benefits and harms some IP. Or do you want to let stand your blanket-incorrect assertion that no matter what, we do not know the relative benefit and harm a certain action has upon some IP?
|