Ethical moderation issue
lumpley:
Any legal consequences would presumably land on me, as the guy who hosts the Forge. That would suck.
-Vincent
Matthew V:
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on May 24, 2011, 05:01:41 PM
I don't know of a compelling argument for how distributing pirated files would advance the site's agenda, and I fully acknowledge that the issue itself, and my stance on it, are both highly contentious at this time. Supporters of piracy have no legitimate need for this platform, while the platform could be severely harmed should the considerable contingent of independent game designers and publishers who support IP rights take offense. You don't need that grief, not when the only reason to go for it would pretty much be symbolic support for a principle that's not by any means central to the Forge agenda.
I absolutely agree with that statement. Unless the Forge has some reason to begin supporting pirated copies of for-profit RPGs, then I can't think of a single reason that allow their distribution would make the Forge "a better place" for independent RPG designers and players to talk with each other. Also, it strikes me as a bit rude (at the least) to distribute other's work in a way the original author may not intend. If the Forge intends to be a resource to new indie RPG writers, it seems unfriendly to new RPG writers to give the impression that you're "giving a pass" to links to pirated materials. Lots of people might consequently be concerned that their work would be improperly distributed as a result of participating in this community.
Rafu:
Quote from: contracycle on May 25, 2011, 08:35:53 PM
I don't have much truck with IP myself, and indeed despise "property rights" more generally, but to endorse "pirate" material, actively or passively, is in effect picking a side in a war in which you may have no particular reason to be involved.
Sorry, but I have to disagree vehemently.
If there's such a war going on - and I believe indeed it's raging - you can't not pick a side, not as a "public" person dictating policy for a discussion forum.
In fact, to take the most "conservative" option and stay "away from trouble", so to speak, Ron and Vincent would have to actively policy users — rule out a certain kind of links, remove those from threads or close threads… Can you see where this is headed, right? That's taking a side, it's basically unavoidable.
The alternative - doing nothing at all, not stating an explicit policy, letting each user take care of themselves - is already being described in this thread as "encouraging piracy" or "taking a stand". Which is typical of civil wars: those are most often fought over uneven fields.
Eero: I agree, as usual, with your dispassionate analysis. But to jump to such conclusions…
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on May 24, 2011, 05:01:41 PM
In a nutshell: while I advocate against anti-piracy (and for revised IP laws worldwide), I do not see a need for the Forge to take the highly controversial stance of supporting in public something that is still largely a taboo in the community. I might change my mind if somebody can suggest a really good use for open piracy at the Forge, but if the only motivation for linking to pirated content is the minor convenience of saving some Google searches... no point at all that I can see, and lots of potential for people getting angry. Best to treat the matter the way Americans treat politics and religion, by being silent about it and avoiding offense.
…implies an additional, omitted step: that one is comfortable being a hypocrite just for the sake of being left alone.
The simile with politics (which this topic is!) and religion is particularly fitting here, as I don't recall Ron as being one of those "Americans" who stay silent to avoid offense. :)
Quote from: lumpley on May 29, 2011, 12:43:01 PM
Any legal consequences would presumably land on me, as the guy who hosts the Forge. That would suck.
The "legal consequences" of not playing IP cop to any big company's tune are largely overstated, I purport, and would merit further investigation. Do we even know what the actual dangers are while we're speaking?
Notice: Yes, I'm passionate about the topic. But I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just stressing what I believe are obvious implications or points which often get overlooked.
Moreno R.:
BitTorrent, eMule, etc, are means of distribution (illegal means of distribution most of the time, but not always)
The mission statement of the Forge is about indie publishing. Helping people to publish their games by themselves, making their own choices, about the game's content, shape, printing, distribution and pricing.
Should a game be distributed by IPR? It should be the game creator's choice (if IPR agree, of course). Should a game be available on BitTorrent? The same.
Not only allowing links to pirated copies would be a legal risk, it would even be against the site mission. (the only exception would be having the game creator writing the link himself, by his or her choice)
Even if you, or me, believed that it would be "right" for the game to be available on these networks, even if we believed that it would be in the game creator's best interest... it's simply not out choice to make.
Ron Edwards:
Hi everyone,
First, thanks to everybody has posted. You have thoroughly helped me understand which issues are most important.
1. The issue is clearly not about Torrent et cetera as technology, particularly publishing technology. There will be no Forge mandate against linking to such services for publishing purposes.
2. I also don't especially fancy myself or the site as a representative for any government's notions about intellectual property. So I'm not going to link to an official copyright-definition site and say that activity here must accord to its standards.
2'. However, I do think that a site specifically devoted to self-publishing and creator ownership needs to have standards regarding public use of creator-owned materials. Rafu and others are absolutely right that there is no neutrality in an issue of this kind.
So ... my take is that I should moderate against linking to owned materials. And the criteria for that are going to come down to two things: (i) whether the actual owner has an opinion about it, and (ii) in the absence of such an opinion, a totally moderator-driven judgment about it. Which unfortunately makes the whole thing a little bit case-by-case, but at least I can say, "Don't link to free versions of stuff if its owner is obviously trying to sell it."
The grey areas which immediately appear include older material whose ownership is no longer commercially relevant (long-gone companies, et cetera), or material whose ownership is disputed, and probably a whole ton of circumstances which you will all identify for me. I'll have to work out that sort of thing as we go along, I suppose, or at least rely on good-faith effort type thinking, that the person who's linking to it makes some inquiries if necessary. So for the moment, sentence 2 of the policy I have in mind would be, "If you don't know whether its owner is trying to sell it, then make a good effort to find out before linking to this free version."
Thoughts and comments are very welcome.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page