From the article: "I believe that it is always up to the artists (or publisher or the group that holds the rights) to do what they want with their art ... We don't support most censorship, like the alteration of books or movies. This should be no different."
Two words: Architect Entertainment.
Besides, once someone decides to make their art commercially available, they are giving up some of their right to control it. If I buy a painting or a poster or a music CD or a novel or a movie or a board game, or even if I get one for free in some (legal) way, and the person who created it later decides that they don't want its contents to be publicly available, I have no obligation to destroy or sell it, because it is now my property. I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, but don't we, as purchasers of a video game, have just as much right to continue to make use of the software we've purchased?
Obviously I have no more right to insist that NCSoft continue to run servers than I would to insist that videocassette manufacturers continue to sell VCRs. But I have a lot of trouble seeing any way that the idea that "MMO players have no rights to the software or setting once the publisher decides to stop supporting the game" is any more acceptable than the idea that "board game players have no rights to the components or rules once the publisher decides to stop manufacturing the game".
