I'm hoping you readers can help me out with a slight ethical dilemma I'm having with an article I'm working on.
Without going into too much detail, the article is a composite review of a few accessories, peripherals, and other game-related Apocrypha. One of these products is, without little doubt, totally illegal. As far as I can tell, its only use is getting around the copyrights of a console manufacturer by offering emulated games for a now-defunct system. This product is made in China, I believe, and is sold in strip malls and shopping centers across the country.
On the one hand, there is definitely value in informing the public about what they might not even know is an illegal product. Clueless parents or eager gamers might pick this up not knowing that it isn't licensed by the console manufacturer. Those gamers that don't care about the piracy issues might also be interested in whether or not the product is worth the money, legal or not. But is this an audience I really should be considering?
On the other hand, promoting an illegal product in a game publication does little to help the game industry, or help the publication's relationship with the company the product hurts. Encouraging your readers to break the law -- even a law you think is silly, unjust or outdated -- could be considered somewhat irresponsible. And even if you pan the product, any press can be good press for these types of things
There are some ancillary questions if you decide to run the article. Is it necessary to mention that the product is illegal. How much prevalence should this fact be given? How much help should you give readers in obtaining or using this product?
Obviously, I'm of two minds on this issue, so I'd like to know what my readers think. Leave your thoughts using the comments link below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I vote for not reviewing it. Even assuming that people would innocently pick up this product and not know of its illegality, greater exposure for this type of item would likely lead to more illegal activity.
ReplyDeleteYou say that the system in question is now "defunct", which means it appeals to the abandonware advocate that I am, but I still think it is better to keep this sort of stuff underexposed.
I tend to buy into a view that consoles that are outdated (even the DC and N64)...things that you can't really find games at stores or game players usually should be considered quasi-public domain. Now, that a law is stupid won't keep someone out of trouble. But really, at this point, the game companies don't lose money on emulation of 10 year old systems/games. The market for new product is dead, it is either used (legal) or emulation (illegal.) So while I have no tolerance for pirates of current products, I can't get worked up over more dated stuff. So I say go ahead with it.
ReplyDeleteI'd say skip it. Let's put it this way, if you were doing a DVD review (even of an older film that's no longer available), would you go out on the street corner and buy one of the pirated versions and review it?
ReplyDeleteI say review, if only because it calls attention to it and ensures that maybe legal action will be taken by the company with the copyright. You should mention legal alternatives if any such exist, and if they don't exist, call attention to that ("this product wouldn't have such a big market share if so-and-so company would do X). A bit juvenile, but useful none-the-less. (I can't help but feel that the new GameTap service is TBS's answer to the emulation debate. Good for them.)
ReplyDelete~Kris
Well, Kyle stirred me to respond, but it ended up on my site here.
ReplyDeleteIn short, break the law by using the product, but report on it, not review it. And be up-front about why it's illegal.
Your articles are read because they hold no direct affiliation to any gaming company. You pride yourself in providig information, not biased comments of "buy this!" I think the only person that can answer this question is you. As long as you provide information as to the legality of the product, you are doing no harm to anyone.
ReplyDeleteBut is this an audience I really should be considering?
Come on! Are you saying that you plan to deny information to those that use this product? If you're even considering to review this product, then everyone who reads it and buys the product is a part of that audience.
If you realy want to write the review, write it! If you're too worried of the legal issue and truely don't want to be writing to the wrong group of people, then don't.
It's good to be informed. I'm sure the majority of the readers wouldn't know such a product to be ilegal. Personally, in your situation, I would write it. But your article, your decision.
I'd say run with it -- the public's right to know far outweighs your desire to not publicize the people making the product. Silence is not the answer.
ReplyDeleteYou may want to make sure the illegality of the device is mentioned in your article however, and you make sure you mention that you do not mean to condone it.
If you don't tell people about it, or just tell them a limited portion of the truth focusing on the bad, they clearly won't do it! After all, look at how effective this has been for illegal drug use and teenage sex!
ReplyDeleteYour readers deserve the truth. The product is infringing copyrights and many people feel that doing so is morally wrong. That's the truth. The quality of the product is also part of the truth. Some people are going to do illegal things; it's best they go into it as knowledgable as possible (in much the same way that while herion use is bad, it's better to inform users on how to use needles safely than not). Other people will like to know that products like this exist and may use it to push legit manufacturers to produce them or argue for changes in copyright law to allow orphaned games to be republished.
The only reasons you should not review the item would apply to legal devices. For example, I suspect that the device in question isn't easily available to your readers. Given that it might not be worth your time to review, any more than you'd review some obscure Japanese video game that will never be released in the US (ssuming you're writing for a US publication).
Spreading the truth generally helps everyone. Keeping things in the shadows typically only helps those people who want to linger in the shadows anyway.
Alan De Smet's comment above has been the most persuasive for me so far. Anyone have a rebuttal?
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to disagree with the DVD analogy. Reviewing game copying hardware isn't like buying and reviewing a bootleg movie; it is like reviewing the hardware used to bootleg the movie.
ReplyDeleteRegarding De Smet's comments, and at the risk of being an Old Media kind of guy, let me respond. Pick the news media outlet you respect the most (e.g. NPR). Now, ask yourself if they would review (describe, discuss the quality of, perhaps even recommend) a device that was only available from Hong Kong that had no legal use. For a general audience let's say it's a device to "steal" cable TV, or maybe just to secretly access the premium channels without paying for them.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that media outlet wouldn't review such a device is that they have a reputation. Even if though they could defend themselves on the whole "just giving information to the public" premise, the question for the editor should be "could I have done a better job serving the public on the issues involved by doing a different kind of story?" The answer, most certainly, is yes. A public interest story on the gray/black market filled with copyright violations, where they come from, what kind of technology is used, etc., etc. could educate the public on the quality of the devices as well as make the point that they're illegal.
For me, frankly, it comes down to a question of reputation and responsibility. When I talked about the Flash 2 Advance Ultra 512Mb and importing NES games on my site, the issues of legality were discussed. In fact, there is a lot of discussion about legality on my site. That's how I'm trying to keep my reputation even while talking about possible illegal devices or software.
(Gotta go eat dinner. Sorry for lack of editing, clarity, etc.)
I think I know the product your talking about and I have seen it some where other then where you saw it. lets just say it was on a channel having to do with gaming, and it was used in a little mod/dark mod thingie on one of their "new" shows (if you figure out what i mean go to their site and look for something useing this it's cool but i wouldnt make it myself).
ReplyDeleteany way i think that since this company is outside the US (in china)they feel they will fly under the legal radar but these things scream illegal. i'm pretty sure the device has at least one game on it that is still being sold in one form or another, OR at least the franchises are still kept alive by the companies that founded them. Hell i'm looking at the device on the chinese distribution site right now:
http://www.eittek.com/Games/powerplyer_en.htm
and they dont even attempt to hide the fact that they are N64 and sega genesis controlers, and i'm takeing a wild guess that one does carry sega titles and the other one carries nintendo.
If this was marketed by those two respective companies (which i'm sure they wouldnt do so together) then sure then i say legal all the way, much like the new mortal Kombat plug and plays that midway is sending to shelves, but i'm sure it's not since they only seem to be distrubted by this company. which leads me to believe these things would be sold in lower rung stores (dollar stores come to mind, athough i bet they would be sold for more then that, and you can find any thing in those places)and i'm sure higher end stores (say a EB or even Walmart or Target) take the time to research the products they sell to make sure they arent infringing on copyrights or are just general knock offs, since doing so would save them legal fee's as well. they just may not say anying thing when they find that they do break a law.
I'd write about the device fairly if it had anything new or novel about it. If it exists solely as a repackaging of someone else's intellectual property, however, what's the point of a review? In that case I'd write about the circumstances that gave rise to it (more people wanting to play retro games, the development of "cheap" toys recycling vormerly hot properties, etc).
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you decide to do, be cautious about publishing an article claiming that a company's product is illegal unless you can verify that they do not have their intellectual property ducks in a row, so to speak. You may subject yourself to personal liability otherwise.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you decide to do, be cautious about publishing an article claiming that a company's product is illegal unless you can verify that they do not have their intellectual property ducks in a row, so to speak. You may subject yourself to personal liability otherwise.
ReplyDeleteWhile you might not see the evening news reviewing illegal copiers and the like in their evening tech bits, news programs quite often go into excrutiating detail of various illegal activities. Drug labs, check forgery schemes, explosives, breaching security, etc...
ReplyDeleteSure, they tend to omit one or two minor objects for legal reasons, but anyone with a slight interest can figure the rest out on their own.
The best thing on that eittek site is the psp knock-off. I remember playing one of the n64 controller things in a mall kiosk here in Seattle (which is right by Nintendo) and thinking the menu system sucks for accessing the games.
ReplyDeletebefore you go on about what's illegal, 'free culture' is a must read, by lawrence lessig. google will show you the way.
ReplyDeletethere is an argument that allowing people to play games that are no longer sold by distributors still adds value to the creator, who I think deserves more consideration than the f'ken middle men.