D&D General Why a PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content is a Bad Idea

[mamba]

If an opinion is not true, then what is it? A lie?

it is wrong?

If an opinion is not true, then it simple seems to me like it is being said that I am not allowed my opinions because they are not the same opinions as his.

First of all, if your opinion is wrong (and I am not saying it is…) then that means it does not comport with reality. In that case the best approach is to change your opinion, and not to double down on it.

Second in this case you should change your opinion because it is nonsense, not because somebody else has a different one.

If both opinions comport with reality / the facts as we know them and just are different interpretations, then neither opinion is wrong (but these cases are relatively rare, many differing opinions are due to not agreeing on what the facts are)

 

[Deset Gled]

If I'm wrong and no one here has said or implied that it's good for materials to be perpetually available to consumers, I'm content to be wrong. (No time, energy, or inclination to provide links.)

I wasn't part of the discussion about it earlier, but I'm happy to share my belief that art should be perpetually available to the public.

OTOH, I will reject the idea that this is somehow a new concept or only possible with modern technology. Libraries and museums have existed for millennia based on the same ideals. The fact that we can accomplish the same thing on a smaller scale with capitalism is something I consider to be progress.

I was interested in whether people felt that authors' and artists' had more legitimate authority to pull their work from circulation than copyright holders who had no direct role in the creation of the materials. It's a complete tangent to this thread's topic, but I'm starting to get confused about which thread I'm posting in. Carry on!

No.

 

[ReshiIRE]

No.

Doesn't that lead to a form of censorship and forced speech where someone can't get rid of a work they wrote that they disagree with or simply don't want available now, or perhaps don't want to have on a particular format?

That gets tricky and is an area where you have to apply nuance and is up to individual cases, but under current law it seems extreme to say to an author they can't stop authorising or publishing their work. Whether they'd be right to or wrong to morally, it'd also be wrong morally to say "no, you must continue to provide this", right?

I think this is an area where we can't say 'yes' or 'no'. Certainly not when copyright is how it is right now?

(Mods, I'm guessing that talking about capitalism positively or negatively could come under politics?)

 

[Umbran]

Now I'm confused...

On one hand it's important enough to do something about it even though it's a product about pretending to be elves.
On the other hand it wouldn't be important enough to preserve because it's a product about pretending to be elves.

I don't believe I have ever said it is important enough to do something about.

Imho the importance here isn't in the product as it relates about pretending to be elves, it's important because it shows how society worked then, what was then acceptable enough in corporate America to print. The history of the RPG hobby and D&D in particular.

DriveThruRPG and the DMs Guild are not a site for preservation of material for the future. That's what libraries and museums are for. If you want to show how society worked and all, the base argument shouldn't be about perpetual retail sales.

 

[Deset Gled]

Doesn't that lead to a form of censorship and forced speech where someone can't get rid of a work they wrote that they disagree with or simply don't want available now, or perhaps don't want to have on a particular format?

Not in the slightest. Once the art leaves an artists hands, it's not theirs anymore.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Not in the slightest. Once the art leaves an artists hands, it's not theirs anymore.

Do you disagree with the concept of copyright law then especially as they stand now?

Do you disagree with a principal of freedom of speech where one can be in control of redactions or changes to what they have said before?

Does this apply to news articles, informative or non-artistic media, fact checks, etc.?

Do people get to put any restrictions on how their works are used, such as in copyright or copyleft licenses for art and software?

 

[Deset Gled]

Do you disagree with the concept of copyright law then especially as they stand now?

Do you disagree with a principal of freedom of speech where one can be in control of redactions or changes to what they have said before?

Does this apply to news articles, informative or non-artistic media, fact checks, etc.?

Do people get to put any restrictions on how their works are used, such as in copyright or copyleft licenses for art and software?

I fail to see how any of this is even remotely relevant.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I fail to see how any of this is even remotely relevant.

It's relevant to having a conversation and considering the impact the idea of an artist having no control of their work after they publish it.

It's fine if you don't want to discuss it, but it is relevant, and could have lead to something more fruitful.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think there is a lot of interesting nuance to how much control an author should have after their work is published, but I daresay that's practically fuel for another thread focused on that topic. It's certainly interesting in that I think authors should have some rights as to how their work is published, but at the same time we have incredible examples of authors editing their works after the fact and really changing the work itself in ways many (or at least, myself personally and many I know) did not feel positive about.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I agree a thread like that would be interesting, but it would involve discussion across political and legal lines as it'd be necessary to discuss copyright law versus the idea of copyleft versus freedom of expression versus everything else. I don't think that's appropriate for that forum from my understanding of the rules?

The last thing I will say is this: so many issues around this are not about censorship or freedom of expression, but are caused by modern copyright law, and at some stage they will need to be resolved. Think of it like this: where this book out of copyright law, a version with the petition's requests could have been published already, without restricting access to the old version - potentially satisfying everyone, no?