Begging or Commisioning; a question of unethical practice of modding.

[Da Werecat]

21 minutes ago, 40oz said:

Da Werecat initiated this donation commission thread

Not really, it's all in the OP.

[snapshot]

15 minutes ago, Red said:

Everyone is going to be pissed when Yuki and I destroy capitalism with a planet sized revolver 

I'll make you digest those symbols that include the alphabet.

[40oz]

23 minutes ago, R1ck said:

One of them is clearly conducting an unethical practice (at least for me that is).

Which one is it?

 

I think you mean the first one but I can't tell. Of those scenarios, I think all of them are controversial in some way.

[R1ck]

^yeah, the first one.

[Major Arlene]

There's a difference between making something for fun, because you want to do it, and making something that's a specific request that someone asked you to do. I think that's the main difference. For example, architects do their work for an amount of money, but could go home and build a treehouse for their family or something and not charge them. It only really gets unethical when you start charging people for everything you do, including the stuff for funzies. 

[Koko Ricky]

Money is a way of granting people value for their work, but we usually don't consider hobbyist pursuits to be worthy of monetary value. This is especially true when one's hobby is to modify the intellectual property of other people. It seems that not enough of us are asking what type of work should considered value-worthy (payable). I could imagine a few scenarios where, in the context of modding, this would be an appropriate move.

 

A) Modder hobbyist makes use of a Patreon tip jar. This is a way of saying to the audience, "My standard of living will increase if you show me your appreciation through monetary value, if you would like." I think if they're spending large amounts of time on modding, then we should be able to grant them value.

B) A modding team funds their project through a Kickstarter campaign, as the amount of time and energy and resources needed to fully realize the final product would not be possible without compensation. Without payment, the project would have waded through development hell for years, lack polish and possibly never reach completion.

 

Of course, there are also scenarios where monetary value would be an inappropriate move.

 

A) Hobbyist refuses to release content unless he reaches "sufficient" funds, either through a campaign or a tip jar.

B) Hobbyist releases most of their projects for free, but also has "VIP content" that only backers have access to.

C) Hobbyist attempts to seek "employment" by modding, meaning that whether or not the bills get paid depend on backers. Maybe in the future, modding will become so big that it develops as an industry, but at the moment it's too soon to jump on that train.

D) Hobbyist or project team sets too high a goal for backers, rather than basing it on the project's budget.

 

So you can see it's a very complicated subject. But I think there is a time and place for making money off of mods. At the end of the day, we want to be valued for quality products that we work hard on. Yes, it may be based off someone else's work; that's why we have to be very critical in considering when it is and is not okay.

 

EDIT: I wanted to throw an example at you guys that I think is highly relevant. Have you been following the Doom 3 Phobos project? It's been taking a long time. Imagine if they could have funded it right from the beginning, or at least have implemented a tip jar. I think that would have motivated them to work on it more consistently and with more dedication, because the extra money would be like getting paid to have a second job. It would have been released long ago if this had happened! When you're not getting paid and can't really pour money into it, things take longer.

[Memfis]

I feel like just about all of this should be allowed, and people should simply decide where they want to put their money. If people are willing to pay John in order to download his newest wad, so be it. If they think he's an asshole for demanding money then guess what, he won't get anything. But is it necessary to regulate this by law?

[40oz]

The question is about ethics. It becomes more complicated when it depends on the persons own judgment to make the decision of using video game modding as a career, or as a means of gift giving to fellow players.

[SleepyVelvet]

I think this convo has more to do with ethics and stigma than about legal regulations.

 

But still, w.r.t ethics too though:  It is not unethical to put any amount of things you create behind a paywall, per se; it's your creation, and you are 100% entitled to the fruit of your labor.  It is, though, unethical to mis-market something and lie, like if you charge money but then release it for free which jips off the people who just paid, or if you don't actually do what you promised and instead embezzle money.  The other thing with purchase-to-play is copyright ethics, which is a whole other big animal.  An issue with paywalling your content is not the paywalling itself, but that to viably enforce the paywall, you have to either use copyright laws, or you have to rely on culture to espouse certain values on plagarism and piracy (good luck with that).

 

 

[rodster]

What about those fancy start-up companies which we nevear hear of again? :D

[Uncle 80]

Asking money for making mods is a bit shady, having a "tip jar" on your page, I really don't see the problem. If you think asking money for a mod based on someone else's work is the same thing as asking money to make original artwork for somebody/something - regardless if you have made free artwork or not for someone else in the past - then you are wrong.

[Maes]

What makes this discussion confusion is the causality of the demand -normally someone asks for/is offered money when he's been asked to perform a certain job.  In that case, it's clear where the demand comes from -from the employer/commissioner, and when it comes -before the work is done, requesting that it's done.

 

But reversing the causality -doing a job and asking money a-posteriori, unsolicited, has more in common with street performing, and certain forms of beggary. Even worse, asking money in order to perform, again, unsolicited, is unusual to say the least. especially if you claim that this is NOT exactly like advertising your services => here's the commercial clause again.

[CapnClever]

I think, before we can make a breakthrough on this topic, you have to answer why

12 hours ago, R1ck said:

cyberbeg for using patreon and shit for developing a mod is a totally questionable ethic

is true. Because I see a number of people suggesting the opposite.

 

I'm guessing that your argument stems from the "beg" part: begging evokes a sympathetic reaction from the audience in an attempt to gain monetary compensation, and I would agree in general that this is an unethical practice. But I'm gonna say there's a difference between people who take up begging itself as a job of sorts (e.g., along the streets of a well-populated city as others pass through) and people who are vaguely providing a good or service and are vaguely asking for compensation in return (such as on Patreon). A beggar isn't even remotely providing a good or service: the most a payer can theoretically get is a sense of compassion. It's possible that a crowdfunder is being disingenuous and isn't planning to provide the good/service, but that's being unethical through dishonesty rather than guilt-tripping.

 

In a later post you suggest some similar examples, one of which you suppose is unethical:

4 hours ago, R1ck said:

there's this kind of people- "Hey guys I'm making [insert mod here] and it will be taking a while, I need money from you guys so I can eat stuff in between."

 

then there's this kind of people- "Hey guys, our team is working for [insert mod here] and I feel bad for them working free so I need you guys to give any amount of money for them"

 

and there's- "Excuse me, you are a modder for [insert game here] right? what kind of mod can you make for me if I give you 9001 dollars?"

I see no ethical difference between "person making a mod and asking for compensation, some of which will undoubtedly go to living expenses", "team making a mod and asking for compensation, some of which will undoubtedly go to living expenses" and "person being offered compensation, some of which will undoubtedly go to living expenses, for a mod". Other than what I mentioned above -- wording the message in a way to guilt people into giving money -- these exchanges are virtually identical. If you wanna say that boldly stating invested money will go towards living expenses is unethical, as an attempt to engender sympathy, then I can understand your perspective. But I also would be treating that part of the message, regardless of what it is, as a very low priority in my decision to invest (thereby making the ethicality pointless).

 

I've noticed this as a complaint of large charity events, as well. In the case of Games Done Quick, I've seen comments of those not realizing that "100% of donations go to [insert charity organization here]" doesn't mean 100% of the money goes toward the intent of the charity: that's a pipedream. Nonprofit organizations, including charitable ones, still have to deal with operating costs and even salaries. The idea of doing extra work without compensation may be a virtue, but I don't think expecting compensation should be a vice.

[Maes]

The problem here is one of deliberate ambivalence -those that appear to "beg" (especially as a precondition before they create any work)- are actually not behaving any differently than any professional advertising their services, only that they won't admit to this, perhaps in an effort to avoid all the extra baggage that goes with "going formal". This is not only unethical, but, depending on the jurisdiction and the amount of money involved/the object you're working on, also illegal.

 

A proper professional must release a receipt for his services, keep books, pay VAT back to the State etc. Trying to evade this by calling a-priori payments "donations", is not only unfair to the actual pros, it's probably considered a form of tax avoidance, and maybe even running afoul or other laws, if it's applied in the context of a regulated profession.

 

It's treading on thin ice no matter how one looks at it -the very least you'll have people questioning your ethics. Then you may either attract C&D letters or be invited by "The Man" for an audit...

[40oz]

I predict that this new market for video game mods is inevitably going to kill modding for good. Maybe not for Doom, but the spread of this relatively new idea that you can make mods and get paid will certainly contaminate everyone's motivation. 

 

With two extra pencil strokes, you can mod the game of tic-tac-toe from 3x3 squares to 4x4 squares and significantly alter the playing field of the game. As games are becoming less mod-friendly by design, the amount of work and time required to make any remarkable change to a modern game is going to get much greater, and when people put forth work and time, they want money for it. We now have a market for video game modding, a market where asking for money for your work and time is gradually becoming the norm. This makes new modders face a difficult decision:

 

1. Do I want to lose the respect of my peers by selling out?

2. Do I want to work tirelessly for free?

 

In addition, when video game companies see some serious revenue come out of this, they'll do what they need to do to dominate this market. If this means making mods for their own games that have that same nitty-gritty charm of being a fan-made DIY project, like changing the player skins to spider man or giving the final boss a pair of "Deal With It" shades, then that's what they will do. This is a fragile market that seems to me to be very easy to stifle. 

 

I was motivated to make Doom maps after playing my first couple megawads. I had such a thrilling and profound Doom experience, that I felt an obligation to return that favor back to the Doom community by making maps for everyone that captured that same kind of energy it had for me. If making money though modding becomes the norm, no one will get into modding for the same reason I did.

 

[Da Werecat]

Cutting edge games are already unmanageable for a typical bunch of amateurs. They've been for quite some time. Most people are attracted to simpler things for this reason, and I don't think it'll change any time soon.

[fraggle]

On 10/18/2017 at 3:00 AM, R1ck said:

cyberbeg for using patreon and shit for developing a mod

Using Patreon isn't begging. A beggar asks for money with no expectation of having to give anything back. When you support an artist on Patreon you know that you're getting something back in the sense that you're helping to bring art into the world.

 

It seems like the reason you're confused is that the Patreon model doesn't fit into the "normal" economic model that we're all accustomed to. What I mean is that "normally" you pay some money, and you get something in return - it's a direct trade of one thing for another. That isn't always true in the Patreon case, but you're still getting "something" in return, even if not directly.

 

There are plenty of other analogous examples. Giving money to a charity or a political party for example - ultimately you're helping to support a cause that you believe in.

 

Quote

is a totally questionable ethic, yes.

No.

 

On 10/18/2017 at 11:49 AM, R1ck said:

One of them is clearly conducting an unethical practice (at least for me that is).

Begging isn't unethical. Actions are unethical if they harm people, so even if Patreon was "begging" (it isn't), it wouldn't be unethical since it harms nobody. Someone sitting in a street begging isn't harming anyone either, even if you wish you didn't have to see them. People can voluntarily give and exchange money however they wish, and unless they're paying a hitman to commit a murder or something, it isn't unethical.

 

On 10/18/2017 at 11:21 AM, GhoulDesecrator said:

Things start to get unethical when you start doing things like "you only get this cool stuff if you pledge me $25 or more per month", in my opinion.

On 10/18/2017 at 0:40 PM, Major Arlene said:

It only really gets unethical when you start charging people for everything you do, including the stuff for funzies. 

I really don't understand where you people get this idea that you're entitled to other peoples' work - any of it. By all means complain that artists may be unreasonable for setting prices on their work that are too high and that you can't afford. But unethical is a different matter entirely. Artists are entitled to set whatever price they want for their work, just like you're entitled to set whatever price you want for yours.

 

Worse, the rewards case is actually a lot more clear cut since you're paying and directly getting something in return, just like if you signed up to pay a magazine subscription for example. Calling it unethical is almost absurd - you're essentially saying that you believe artists don't even have the right to sell their own work.

[Csonicgo]

1 hour ago, fraggle said:

you're essentially saying that you believe artists don't even have the right to sell their own work.

This. THIS. I’ve heard this said by people without even changing up the word order. Makes me angry just thinking about it.

[Da Werecat]

We're on a forum largely dedicated to sharing our creations for free. Maybe it skews people's perception somewhat.

[Chezza]

Someone makes a proposition - donate a portion of money to support me continue my work with potential of increased productivity and quality. You can see and enjoy my work for free now and may continue to regardless of donation. Those who assist will be given some incentives.

 

That's neither begging nor unethical. Using someone elses assets is but excluding that factor, it isn't.

[Maes]

57 minutes ago, Chezza said:

Those who assist will be given some incentives.

That's the only gray area in the whole thing, IMO: in some jurisdictions this may be considered a regular commercial transaction. Not unethical, but perhaps enough to void the "donation" status of any money you received and maybe receive undue attention from the revenue service. IANAL, YMMV etc., of course.

[fraggle]

5 hours ago, Maes said:

That's the only gray area in the whole thing, IMO

I'd agree that you can probably argue that the tax law situation is ambiguous (when you have rewards, should that be subject to income tax or sales tax, for example?). That's unsurprising  - as mentioned, sites like Patreon don't fit into the normal economic model. In time I expect countries will update their laws or guidelines to take this kind of thing into account.

[Maes]

In general, tax laws are surprisingly thorough when it comes to monetary transactions and tend to  have all bases covered -e.g. your father cannot sell you his house for a symbolic price in order to avoid inheritance taxes, they already have that covered as a "parental donation", especially to catch any such smartassery.

 

So I'd be surprised if they cannot already pigeonhole the Patreon situation somewhere in the existing tax legislation, fairly or unfairly it doesn't matter. The simplest of all would be to treat ALL Patreon income as income from a free profession, which in general has pretty punishing tax rates in pinko commie yurope, or to consider only "giveaways" to people who pledge more than X as regular transactions, and require all those who offer such "giveaways" to register as regular free professionals, again with punishing tax rates and health insurance obligations.

 

N.B.: IANAL, the above is extrapolated to what would very probably happen in Greece given the current tax legislation. In general, pigeonholing people as "free professionals" for incomes that are not from salaried work or investments is the norm here.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Maes

[Job]

Evidently, the discussion and practice of ethics is largely the public's self-imposed domain. Less so for corporations, if only because they have a team of lawyers behind them.