More
I used the wrong word (I blame my phone), I meant criticized. I really feel that there's no other conclusion that what he's doing is wrong, that you can't really interview him and give him any kind of credence. You can let him dig his own grave, but leaving a "you decide" mentality when there is clear international law stating that he is engaging in illegal activity is not an appropriate conclusion to me.
You can paint him as a human being while still showing that what he does is ethically and legally wrong.
That makes sense. On the other hand I think the "you decide" send off is the only way to end it. If the conclusion is definitive then it should not matter. If you take a further step backwards my opinion shouldn't matter.
Overall I am ok with what I wrote. I think I could have quite possibly been naive entering, but the discussion that followed has been enlightening. Again, did this need to take place? Not really. There has been drama in the past I just thought K3 would be interesting to hear from.
And that's the kind of thing that the Gawker network focuses on. It's not what good news outlets should focus on. There are plenty of interesting projects out there, we don't need drama being brought back up.
Nubbs, I hear you man, and I respect your strong feelings. But clear law doesn't really apply. International copyright issues are anything but clear and there's definitely some east/west friction mixed in here and how different places view IP both ethically and legally.
And there's no place where someone copying crafts is on the same level as a nationally designated hate group.
Alright, then how about this, it's like allowing Nike and Apple to have an interview about their shops that have had human rights violations, but saying that it's not illegal in that country and that, hey, it gets you cheap goods, so you decide if it's right or wrong.
International IP law is pretty clear on the issue. If you want to go further though, you can ignore the fact that he sells domestically and look at the fact that he's selling and shipping to states with reciprocity with the US. He is violating the IP and copyright laws in those countries even if he is not doing so in his home state. There is no circumventing that it is illegal and unethical. Those international laws are part of why he no longer makes Bros.