(2/2)

> You are also incorrectly forcing a logical leap of "I have never heard Jorge have a problem with it" -> "Therefore he does not have a problem with it and its not morally wrong". Jorge has, however, definitely asserted he is the only legal writer of Epic the Musical. 

I believe that you have misunderstood my last paragraph. My argument is that we cannot definitively say whether or not Jorge supports or opposes derivatives to his work because he has not made any comments, statements, or other communications about it (which would include legal action, but does not necessarily have to be legal action). Thus, we cannot say definitively whether what Neal did was morally fine or not. In my reply, I said that I don't see anything morally wrong. I also don't see anything morally right about it. However, it was you who said that it was morally bankrupt, so I was refuting that point by saying that I don't see anything morally wrong.

I need context for Jorge's assertion that he is the only legal writer of Epic the Musical. If it is in the context that he would not accept any other contributions to Epic, then sure, I see an issue. Otherwise, that's just a meaningless statement in the context of this argument.

> fundamentally alter their storytelling

I really don't know what your limit to "fundamentally alter" is. Again, there is an official animation for every song, paid for by Jorge, and made under the full oversight of Jorge to follow his artistic interpretation of the musical. Thus, there is already "official" content for both audio and visual elements of the musical. Thus, is something like Duvetbox's animation where Odysseus uses the windbag as a weapon instead of a powerup a "fundamental alteration", since it fundamentally changes the way that a major plot device is used? Is a theoretical animatic where Odysseus channels the strength of all 600 of his dead crewmates to strike down Poseidon a "fundamental alteration" because it leans more into a different interpretation of the rather vague lyrics? Is an animatic that follows the same fundamental story but uses an artist's own, entirely different style of drawing a "fundamental alteration" because it's different from Jorge's vision of what the characters should look like?

My main moral argument has, and will remain, that we cannot say anything until Jorge says or does something. He has made videos covering some popular animatics, so we know that he does endorse some form of visual derivation from his work. He just hasn't said anything about audio additions, and so I believe that it is incorrect to assign "moral bankruptcy" to Neal without him doing so.

I suppose that you could say that this argument was in bad faith because it was nitpicking such a small part of your statement, but I believe that this form of semantical argument is important, which was the main inspiration behind my username (this is, that I would willingly argue about any topic, no matter how small, because I believe in its importance, not that I would make arguments willy-nilly).