I think it depends on the nature of the "antisocial" activity. Under many circumstances, living by bad rules that you may have supported, opposed, or been indifferent to is less egregious than setting up those rules with the intent of profiting from them.
In this case, I don't think Disney has an ethical leg to stand on; they are responsible in large part for the creation of the rules and should take almost whatever consequences there are of changing them. But I don't think the same can be said of whatever support businesses have grown up in the niches that the rules provide.
To take another example, I'd like to see private funding of electoral campaigns essentially eliminated. But if a candidate, playing under the current rules (who may well oppose the current rules, but they're the only rules in effect) has spent most of her/his early effort getting small donations and the database of donors who may give more, that candidate would be rightly aggrieved if the law changed in the middle of the campaign.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2011-12-25 17:58 (UTC)In this case, I don't think Disney has an ethical leg to stand on; they are responsible in large part for the creation of the rules and should take almost whatever consequences there are of changing them. But I don't think the same can be said of whatever support businesses have grown up in the niches that the rules provide.
To take another example, I'd like to see private funding of electoral campaigns essentially eliminated. But if a candidate, playing under the current rules (who may well oppose the current rules, but they're the only rules in effect) has spent most of her/his early effort getting small donations and the database of donors who may give more, that candidate would be rightly aggrieved if the law changed in the middle of the campaign.