[jadillon]

Greg,

This may be a very admirable project. I understand that you are going for an ethical standard that goes well beyond any legal requirement. This is quite a sophisticated and possibly important undertaking. But people who work with ethics regularly would ask you: what good is an ethical standard if you do not do anything to enforce it?

What would it say to have an ethical code not to copy prior designs if that ethical code were routinely ignored by a few members who used the site to do that the code said not to do. If such a code is adopted, you will have to deal with unethical behavior in violation of the code. If you don't enforce the code in the face of behavior deemed unethical by the code, it's not much of an ethical code then is it.

I might add that that ignoring clear violations of an ethical standard could even be used against you/CT in any litigation over copyright/IP that might ever occur. (That clearly did not comply with your ethical Code, now did it Mr. Cagle? Yet you did nothing to stop it on your site Mr. Cagle, did you? Even though it violated your own ethical Code didn't it, Mr. Cagle? So even if you were unsure whether it violated copyright laws, you still failed to act, didn't you Mr. Cagle?) Put another way, if you establish such an ethical standard, doesn't there really have to be a means of enforcing it. At least with regard to removing things. . . .

p.s. I voted in favor BTW.

[bigjohn]

If the people like (or wan't it), as long as there is no legal stipulation I say let them make it....

[luckychick]

Originally Posted by mizuchaud

How about taking the positive side and just saying YES to originality?

I think this is well said.

I think what Ten is proposing here is great - we just need to be cautious in wording/implementation.

Of course we get inspirations from everyday life, and now and again things that are tributes will come along. But a positive re-inforcement of orginality and creativity to known and new members is a good thing. Policing isn't necessary. Encouraging originality is easy, and can be done in a postive way - just don't be an ass about it. Having a positive statement saying "We encourage and promote original, unique designs" is a good; saying "Hey jerk, you're a plagerizing bstd, stop it" is bad. We have a good enough group here at chiptalk that I think we can do this maturely.

I think sometimes replicas get made because people don't have the courage to try something new; or don't believe they have the talent. I think we've also demonstrated over the last couple of years that a little effort, encouragement and help can result in people with "no artistic talent" ending up with some spectacular original designs. I believe that making a statement promoting original designs might end up with some much happier chip owners in the end.

[smoore]

Originally Posted by Jonah 99

[size=3]
chips that are just a copied inlay (ie reproducing a label of any existing chip and slapping it on a cheaper chip)

This is one of the areas where a line will have to be drawn.

I own Bluz at the Bend chips. *IF* I got permission from the owners of the establishment, would producing a 25¢ direct copy of the chip be unethical according to this code?

1 - they never issued 25¢ chips.
2 - the reseller of the chips offered to contact the owner and ask permission.

How about a Dunes replica set done on ceramics? It's quite obvious that it's not an actual dunes chip, even on the crappiest of ebay photos. The only argument I can come up with against this would be that someone might use these replicas to defraud some poor fool. Caveat Emptor. Collectors can't really complain, because it's obviously not the real thing.

Everyone copied Henry Ford.

[smoore]

Originally Posted by jadillon

Greg,

This may be a very admirable project. I understand that you are going for an ethical standard that goes well beyond any legal requirement. This is quite a sophisticated and possibly important undertaking. But people who work with ethics regularly would ask you: what good is an ethical standard if you do not do anything to enforce it?

What would it say to have an ethical code not to copy prior designs if that ethical code were routinely ignored by a few members who used the site to do that the code said not to do. If such a code is adopted, you will have to deal with unethical behavior in violation of the code. If you don't enforce the code in the face of behavior deemed unethical by the code, it's not much of an ethical code then is it.

I might add that that ignoring clear violations of an ethical standard could even be used against you/CT in any litigation over copyright/IP that might ever occur. (That clearly did not comply with your ethical Code, now did it Mr. Cagle? Yet you did nothing to stop it on your site Mr. Cagle, did you? Even though it violated your own ethical Code didn't it, Mr. Cagle? So even if you were unsure whether it violated copyright laws, you still failed to act, didn't you Mr. Cagle?) Put another way, if you establish such an ethical standard, doesn't there really have to be a means of enforcing it. At least with regard to removing things. . . .

p.s. I voted in favor BTW.

He's right and I think that in being right he has reinforced my point. This is why I think it should be left to an elite cadre that has sworn to uphold a higher standard. Imposing morals on a large group of people is difficult, at best.

In addition, if you cut out a moderate portion of the chip world you will start to fraction everything you've built here.

I think I can see your ethical quandary. You yourself are an avid collector and you are associated with a very large group of Chippers. You are feeling both internal and social pressures to use your influence to bring about a utopia of sorts.

Personally, I would rather just let it run like the wild west, only stopping the most egregious violations (such as an infringement of copyright) and see where the ride takes us.

[jamby]

Greg,

I am ecstatic that you are addressing this issue. As you know, I pleaded with you last year in regard to stopping a clone design for a particular commemorative copy-cat chip.

There is so much creativity on this site that there is no reason at all for fake/clone chip designs. Copying other design, in whole or in part, is wrong on so many counts that I won't even go into here.

I'm just glad to see you promoting discussion and a viewpoint on this issue at this time.

Thank you.

-jamby

Originally Posted by TenPercenter

I have wanted to address this issue publicly for a long time....we are doing a disservice ...when we promote, or even accept, a new design that closely resembles another chip.

[TenPercenter]

Originally Posted by TRIPLE-D

Where would the Monticito GB fall I wonder? It's NOT a replica of the chips used on the show. It's based on a fantasy casino, on a fantasy show? This might be a good example to use to define morally right/wrong, integrity,etc.

I don't see a fantasy casino as a copy.

[TenPercenter]

Originally Posted by smoore

Don't make it something people feel coerced into e-signing.

Copycat chips are a big deal. People love 'em. As long as the legal stuff is taken care of, I say go for it!

So... instead of making it ct.net "suggested operating ethics" make it a club. An exclusive group of people who have signed a pledge that they will not "copy" chips. The definition of "copy" would be determined by the group.

I agree, it's not to be a signed contract-like docuemnt, although I really like the wording Joe used above.

Once the COed is drafted and publiched, I can create a public usergroup here that people can opt into to. That usergroup would be in addition to other groupos you might be in (like Article Writer, Review Drafter, Mod, etc). Opting into that usergroup makes a statement that you belong to that "Club" by choice.

p.s. I expect you to opt in Sean!

[TenPercenter]

Originally Posted by ky70

I'm confused (but that's nothing new).

If this isn't for legal concerns, couldn't Ten just post a disclaimer on the front page (and specific forums as well) stating this site's code of ethics/stance on "Copy Cat Chips"?

We can do that... once it's drafted. But This COde is not "TenPercenter's Code." I want to get collaboartion and buy-in for the draft, publication, and acceptance of the Code.

[TenPercenter]

Originally Posted by jadillon

Greg,

This may be a very admirable project. I understand that you are going for an ethical standard that goes well beyond any legal requirement. This is quite a sophisticated and possibly important undertaking. But people who work with ethics regularly would ask you: what good is an ethical standard if you do not do anything to enforce it?

What would it say to have an ethical code not to copy prior designs if that ethical code were routinely ignored by a few members who used the site to do that the code said not to do. If such a code is adopted, you will have to deal with unethical behavior in violation of the code. If you don't enforce the code in the face of behavior deemed unethical by the code, it's not much of an ethical code then is it.

I might add that that ignoring clear violations of an ethical standard could even be used against you/CT in any litigation over copyright/IP that might ever occur. (That clearly did not comply with your ethical Code, now did it Mr. Cagle? Yet you did nothing to stop it on your site Mr. Cagle, did you? Even though it violated your own ethical Code didn't it, Mr. Cagle? So even if you were unsure whether it violated copyright laws, you still failed to act, didn't you Mr. Cagle?) Put another way, if you establish such an ethical standard, doesn't there really have to be a means of enforcing it. At least with regard to removing things. . . .

p.s. I voted in favor BTW.

I am not looking to protect myself/ChipTalk in court. That never crossed my mind. I'm looking to curb copies of previous chip designs.