[Jeysie]

I'm inclined to agree with Austin.

Legally it may be fine to buy a creative idea from the original creator and sit on it, not do anything with it, and refuse people who do want to do something with it.

But I don't find it moral. If you're going to buy an idea off someone, I think there's an implication that you intend to use the idea, or pass/sell it to someone who will use it. Sitting on a bought idea that isn't originally your own and refusing to let anyone benefit from it just seems greedy and pointless and a waste of people's previous expenditures of time and money.

And then there's the spin-off debate: If someone is sitting on a bought idea, refusing to use it, and refusing to let anyone else use it, is it morally right for someone else to take the matter into their own hands? As evidenced by the multiple stalemate debates on abandonware, that's not an easy issue to form a definitive consensus about.

In short, I agree. Vivendi may be upholding the letter of copyright law, but I do not think they are upholding the spirit of it.

This feels kind of like someone buying, say, a script to a play that the creator's troupes originally performed for the public. The new owner of the script then locks the play script in a trunk, refuses to appoint their own troupe to perform it, and stops any other troupe that decides to perform it. Legal? Yep. True to moral spirit? I fail to see how.

Peace & Luv, Liz