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

Cergorach

The Laughing One
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?
I do not think that this issue is 'caused' by modern copyright law. There's a restriction for sure and it would only wind up in the public domain in the US in 2083 (if nothing changes). But there's been fan created content for decades, even now with the OGL and DMs Guild, people still create fan made content and WotC even allows for that (see link below).

Regarding GAZ10, much of that would need to be completely rewritten anyway, art needs to be redone, maps need to be redone. Effectively you would need to write, illustrate, and cratography a whole new GAZ10b. But has someone done that yet? I don't think so or someone would have mentioned it in the other thread. So all that time spent writing/researching what was hurtful and why, might have been better spent rewriting GAZ10 to be not hurtful or offensive...

I'm just tossing ideas into the ring, but maybe replace the orcs with Grey Orcs, Orange Orcs, and Blue Orcs, besides the default Green Orcs. Warning: I'm just innocently tossing ideas around, if this also offends someone, my apologies!

WotC's fan content policy:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
There's a pretty big difference between an author controlling their work after it's published and a 3rd party asking that author to append a text explaining their work in the view of the 3rd party.
 

There's a pretty big difference between an author controlling their work after it's published and a 3rd party asking that author to append a text explaining their work in the view of the 3rd party.
Third parties put disclaimers on original authors all the time, especially older works with elements that might seem problematic. This is pretty common for publishers and they are literally already doing it for this piece. I don't see how someone asking them to improve it is suddenly the end of free speech as we know it.
 

Third parties put disclaimers on original authors all the time, especially older works with elements that might seem problematic. This is pretty common for publishers and they are literally already doing it for this piece. I don't see how someone asking them to improve it is suddenly the end of free speech as we know it.
Then go ahead and announce your displeasure in your own forum. Chaining your own personal views to a piece of text that was published years ago, not good. Let others decide for themselves. Most of us will be recoiled by this. Jumping in and acting as the arbiter for what is morally correct for others... not going to have to have the outcome you want.
 

Then go ahead and announce your displeasure in your own forum. Chaining your own personal views to a piece of text that was published years ago, not good. Let others decide for themselves. Most of us will be recoiled by this. Jumping in and acting as the arbiter for what is morally correct for others... not going to have to have the outcome you want.

I mean, they are. They are free to try and convince people to do things. That's what free speech is: to be able to protest, to convince, to change. Your argument is one that is against protest movements, against boycotts, against strikes: that you can't try and use your own voice to change someone else's point of view. That's not how speech works... well, not in America, at least. It's worth trying to make things better in both big ways and small ways, however you want to try.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Not in the slightest. Once the art leaves an artists hands, it's not theirs anymore.

We should be clear about language.

"Pull a work from circulation," - if by this they mean "stop selling new copies", then yes, the copyright holder certainly has that right. If by this they mean, "go into your home and take back copies of the work already sold," then you are entirely correct, the rights holder does not have a right to recall copies already sold. That sale is under a presumed license (copyright), that does not allow for such recall.

If an artist wanted to do that, they'd have to sell under a different license.
 
Last edited:

I mean, they are. They are free to try and convince people to do things. That's what free speech is: to be able to protest, to convince, to change. Your argument is one that is against protest movements, against boycotts, against strikes: that you can't try and use your own voice to change someone else's point of view. That's not how speech works... well, not in America, at least. It's worth trying to make things better in both big ways and small ways, however you want to try.
You are not actually listening to what I am saying. I have literally been telling you to use your voice to express your displeasure. What I am saying is that attempting to make your singular voice the only or primary voice that people see (by chaining it to a singular published work), is wrong. That is the opposite of free speech, in America, and anywhere else. So express your displeasure in a way that does not stifle freedom of expression.
 

You are not actually listening to what I am saying. I have literally been telling you to use your voice to express your displeasure. What I am saying is that attempting to make your singular voice the only or primary voice that people see (by chaining it to a singular published work), is wrong. That is the opposite of free speech, in America, and anywhere else. So express your displeasure in a way that does not stifle freedom of expression.
There is a reason this petition only has 14 signatories. Including the petitioner himself.

1677368044031.png
 

You are not actually listening to what I am saying. I have literally been telling you to use your voice to express your displeasure. What I am saying is that attempting to make your singular voice the only or primary voice that people see (by chaining it to a singular published work), is wrong. That is the opposite of free speech, in America, and anywhere else. So express your displeasure in a way that does not stifle freedom of expression.

This is utter nonsense. Asking for a better disclaimer is not "making yourself the singular or primary voice that people see", it's just asking for a better disclaimer. Your entire argument speaks against dozens of boycotts trying to get things changed because, by your own logic, they would be making their view the "singular voice , the only or primary voice that people see". This is an argument that can be made for any petition or protest about something, because they are trying to change something.

There is a reason this petition only has 14 signatories. Including the petitioner himself.

View attachment 276613

That they attached it to a single D&D board with a single topic?
 

Irlo

Hero
You are not actually listening to what I am saying. I have literally been telling you to use your voice to express your displeasure. What I am saying is that attempting to make your singular voice the only or primary voice that people see (by chaining it to a singular published work), is wrong. That is the opposite of free speech, in America, and anywhere else. So express your displeasure in a way that does not stifle freedom of expression.
Let's say I lobby my alma mater to place an interpretive plaque on a monument of a historical figure who promoted discrimination against people related to my fellow students. Am I stifling freedom of expression?

EDIT: To be clear, I am not proposing that the monument scenario is equivalent to the Orcs of Thar (or whatever it's called) scenario. I'm curious where your lines are drawn so I'm offering up a different situation with some similar aspects.

EDIT: And, yes, I agree there's a reason the petition only received 14 signatures. Probably several reasons.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top