This is the baffling thing about people who argue that everyone "being too PC," is harming their ability to make a living or even generate side money on Youtube. Even ignoring the ethical side of the debate about using racial slurs, this should only make them more critical of their peers who fuck things up for everyone. You would think this would heighten the community's initiative to self-police, but no, gotta fight those dastardly SJWs. It's all someone else's fault, I just want to be able to say and do reprehensible shit with impunity!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DMCA takedowns can target specific people, fully legal, no reasoning required.
- Thread starter KSweeley
- Start date
This is the baffling thing about people who argue that everyone "being too PC," is harming their ability to make a living or even generate side money on Youtube. Even ignoring the ethical side of the debate about using racial slurs, this should only make them more critical of their peers who fuck things up for everyone. You would think this would heighten the community's initiative to self-police, but no, gotta fight those dastardly SJWs. It's all someone else's fault, I just want to be able to say and do reprehensible shit with impunity!
A personal vendetta, maybe a measured response to bring the spotlight back to firewatch (given it's getting review bombed on steam, well done) , why retroactively DMCA a video everyone has probably forgot about over a year ago, after he's benefitted from the exposure of YouTube's most popular let's player (jesus fucking christ) and it wasn't even PDP's first fuck up, it's not even a Firewatch game PDP said the word in it was PUBG, sorry but this dev doesn't come out sparkling clean in regards to this move, sure dissociate affiliation that's perfectly fine, weaponising the DMCA in this context... Hmmmmmmm.
ClosingADoor
Member
Or you know... it's just a developer that does not want his games linked - and profiting from in the future - to a racist. It's kind of sad you are jumping through all these hoops to make the Firewatch devs look bad, when it is Pewdiepie who is at fault in the first place.
He even addresses your exposure point in his tweets: https://twitter.com/vanaman/status/906985405093838848
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
You've got it twisted. You don't need to see an entire playthrough of a game from beginning to end to sell you on it. A "Let's Play" that amounts to a few hours of some of the game's highlights would do a far better job at selling you on a game; and would be protected from DMCA takedowns by "fair use".
So yeah, I don't think this argument holds water.
I see no reason people NEED to see entirely playthroughs of games on YouTube.
chromatic9
Member
Yeah, I've seen a few youtubers claim the Firewatch devs can't take the videos down but they absolutely can. If the license changes then the license changes.
Star Orpheus
Member
I frequently watch lets plays of games I've played purely excuse I want to see a persons reaction to certain parts.
As I also said it helps me watch games I have no means of playing.
I support copyright law in most instances and dont really give a shit if someone decided to base their livelihood on using copyright protected material without paying licensing fees. It doesnt suddenly become everyones property. They have 100% rights to control their IP who uses it and how. Especially against racist assholes. Start a real business and pay licensing fees and get permission for things. Or operate within the scope of fair use. The benefits and how nice it wiuld be for things to be different is irrelevant, just like when people dont like that vg companies protect their IPs and take down fan games or mods because "it would be nice" and "its fun"
Because its their IP and they can do whatever they want. Why do they have to have a reason to not let a racist asshole use their IP? This is pretty simple stuff
Because its their IP and they can do whatever they want. Why do they have to have a reason to not let a racist asshole use their IP? This is pretty simple stuff
I'm not saying the devs are bad, they're just not squeaky clean, abuse of DMCA is abuse of DMCA whether it's Digital Homicide, Nintendo or Campo Santo, whether I agree with their point of view or not.
Firewatch devs should have cut ties the same time Disney did if image was 100% the issue, the reaction on GAF when the initial thread first broke out was a flat "of course he did", which should tell you what won't surprise anyone if this happens again.
BronsonLee
Member
There's a difference between Disney (they signed a significant contract with him) and Campo Santo (they made a game and he played it)
You know you don't have much of a case when even the Firewatch dev himself agrees that his use of DMCA was inappropriate.
He felt bad for doing it that way, it was still legal. Hes basically saying he wish he would have contacted pdp personally and asked him to take it down before sending a a formal dmca. That doesnt mean it was abuse. Unless they had an agreement and pdp paid licensing fees this was always a possibility. They technically dont even have to send him a notice they could have just taken him right to court if they wanted to.
stan423321
Member
Filing DMCA notices that don't have a chance of being upheld in a just court case shall one ever happen would be a sensible definition for DMCA abuse.
ClosingADoor
Member
But they are not abusing anything. They are within their rights to do this. You might disagree with their action or think there are better ways to do it, but it is not abuse.
The reasoning that this is abuse because they should have done it earlier is just strange. Plus, the relationship Disney had with Pewdiepie and that the Firewatch devs have is not comparable at all.
From that quote I take he just wanted to handle it different, but couldn't. Doesn't mean it is abuse.
These guys should look up all the licensing, crediting and sourcing you need when working for tv, radio, print media or even online news outlets and such. The fact they got away with their stuff because game publishers just didn't want to push the issue indeed doesn't mean these Youtubers somehow have a never expiring license and permission to publish content with copyrighted material in them.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
I don't get it? You were DMCAd?
Do you think that applies here?
You're being disingenuous - his motivations for the takedown had nothing to do with copyright infringment. It's abuse clear and cut.
...what? Copyright infringement has nothing to do with motivation anyways. Do you think a person who creates and owns an IP only has the right to protect it under certain motivations? They can dmca whoever they want whenever they want if they are using their ip without their permission and outside the bounds of fair use. They can let things slide if they want or they can take a person right to court, might not be worth it, but its within their rights.
ClosingADoor
Member
It had all to do with copyright infringement. I grant you a license to use my content. I revoke that license, which I have the right to do at any time in this case. Then your content still being distributed is a copyright issue.
The reason for revoking my license does not matter at all. I can do that for whatever reason I see fit, since there is no contract in place.
Chairmanchuck
Member
So you think if I make a song, tell everyone to use it as they will, then somehow it becomes a song for the alt-right, I would abuse the system if I decide to DMCA some channels who use it?
Im well within my right to do that, retroactively. The infringement is still happening.
I think people are making the mistake of thinking that if someone decides to DMCA you just because theyre being petty its abuse or somehow fraudulent when in reality its still totally legit. And how it should be. Someday you will create something and you will realize how important it is to be able to maintain control over that IP. Remember, its essentially private property. If you dont want someone using it thats up to you.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but who is going to decide for every single case? The way the DMCA works it gives IP owners a lot of leeway in terms of being able to screw over people.
Maybe your video is fair use, but when it gets DMCA'd it gets removed, and it's on you to provide proof that it's fair and battle it out in court. IP owners with more money than the video maker can easily silence opinions they don't like, including "this IP is bad/racist/whatever" regardless of whether they should be able to, without providing any proof. This isn't even a slippery slope, it happened with h3h3 (not that I'm a fan of them at all). They spent hundreds of thousands fighting this. Is your average YouTuber going to be able to defend themselves from a DMCA like this?
I mean, fuck PewDiePie but the DMCA is very flawed.
I don't think "DMCA a Youtuber for saying thing I don't like" is a valid reason either, if PDP counter claims, then it gets put back up in 2 weeks and then what?
Why didn't Campo Santo request PDP to take down all videos of their game first? Why go straight to DMCA? Why try to rally other people to do the same? Why wait so long after they were fine with his content until now, when he's done it before?
Just to clarify I agree with the end result of not wanting to be affiliated, but I don't agree with the how.
That's a very particular and select way at looking at things - with those kind of optics, theres no such thing as DMCA abuse. DMCA is not designed as a tool to moderate the messaging of your product, but it shows you how bad laws go beyond their original scope justified with creeping logic like that.
Ummm...the courts decide? Just like every other legal matter? Whats the alternative? Letting other people control your IP and it being up to you to have the burden of proof and income that someone else is using it? Then by your same logic whats stopping large corporations from stealing ideas and crushing anyone who tries to stand up against it?
Most law is flawed. Its usually a shitty mess of a conclusion thats been formulated to address everything me and you are talking about.
Well, thats where youre wrong I guess. They literally dont even need a reason. Its their property. Why arent you applying this moral logic to pdp? What valid reason does pdp have to absolutely need their IP? He doesnt have one nor deserve one and getting a dmca from a dev that doesnt want him using their property is the least of my concerns.
If yall wanna fight for copyright rights this is not the case nor the youtuber, you are wasting your time and probably doing harm to the general case by having this one be at all an example of affiliation of the arguments
Save this concern for a valid case of a non racist youtuber operating under fair use, not this cut and dry shit where the only question is the potential pettiness of the developers motivations....... for not wanting to associate with pdp.... for calling someone a fucking nigger on livestream....as if that isnt one of the most logical and reasonable dmcas ever.
ClosingADoor
Member
Again, the reason does not matter. Neither should it. If I own the product, and you use it after I revoked my license, then I can take it down. As I should be able to.
And I can revoke my license for whatever reason I want, because there is no contract in place. For a major Youtuber it is then probably smart to sign contracts with the gaming companies if they are afraid of this happening, then they have an actual license and a list of reasons why the publisher can revoke it.
And yes, as the owner of my IP I have every right to moderate the messaging associated with my product, unless it falls under fair use.
That you don't think the DMCA is a good law has little to do with this all and is a totally different subject.
UserNotFound
Member
The powers be that govern YouTube don't need to fix the system. The house is in their favor.
Relying on YouTube to be your living is like living in a house of cards. The foundation there isn't stable.
Any personality knows by now that you have to put your content out to different venues and start eventually finding ways to make money beyond ad revenue. Twitch streams exist for this very reason. So does paid subscription models and merchandising deals.
The system is exactly set up the way Google wants it to be.
Diprosalic
Banned
it's weird that you can give specific permission on your website and then take it away. just legally speaking, i'm not against what they did to Piepepew.
It hasn't gone that far, but came a little close in 2014:
Activision has been issuing copyright strikes on videos showing glitches and exploits in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
There was also the case of Sega DMCA'ing a ton of old Shining Force videos because they wanted the new Shining Force game to be higher in the search rankings. including people simply talking about the game with zero footage
Backlash is the only thing keeping these companies in line, but you can lose a channel with 3 strikes before you even get the chance to dispute the 1st.
Try reading the thread title again.
Chairmanchuck
Member
But why shouldnt you?
Like I said. Imagine you are making a song, thats then used by the alt-right in YouTube propaganda videos or whatever. I dont want to be associated with it and then I use my copyright to not be associated with it.
Interfectum
Member
Yup, I'm about here too. The culture around game streaming, from the racist streamers to the horrible fans to the stupid emoticon chat spam is just shit from top to bottom. I wouldn't shed a single tear of this entire business model was gone tomorrow.
Yearsoflurking
Member
Yep I feel the same way it's the ip owners material they can do whatever they wish with it. If youtubers have a problem they should stop living off the back of other people's material
They revoked his permission to use their IP in any way. Pretty simple. Just because the video was already up doesnt mean it has a perpetual license.
Think of it like this. An artist says everyone go ahead and use my music. I make music using their music. Put it up on itunes. That song is always up, it doesnt just count as having been made on whichever date, its still currently there. So when artist revokes my permission and says I can no longer use their music, I have to take it down. Even though it was made with permission. Theyre not forcing people who downloaded the pewdiepie video to delete it from their hard drives, theyre asking pewdiepie to take the videos down that are still up (and generating revenue...)
This is exactly why DMCA takedowns are weaponised more than a means of protecting IP holders these days.
And PDP probably doesn't need the Firewatch IP, for all we know the devs could have sent a kindly worded e-mail to request PDP to take their content off his Youtube channel and he may have complied, yet the first thing devs go to is DMCA because... That seems to be instinct at this point.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
There is a big difference between doing reviews, weapon and map guides, tips and tricks, critiques, etc and Let's Plays. The former are all fair use and the latter is either a specific license or a gentleman's agreement between streamers and publishers/devs.
ClosingADoor
Member
Yes, which says it is all legal what they did and your argument that it is abuse is not a valid one.
By keeping the content up he is still redistributing it, which is now not allowed since the license is gone. The devs can't sue for damages for him having that content up until then, because they did give permission for that timeframe. But the moment they revoked that, even the old content can't be redistributed anymore.
It's the same with any digital content. If Spotify loses the license to Kanye Wests label or whatever, that also means they can no longer offer his old songs that were up there previously.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Works like parody and criticism and academic works should be protected no?
No one has a right to make money from someone else's work.
You can review a game. You can't do a let's play and make money without a license.
What is and what isn't fair use is a valid discussion to have.
Pewdiepie: "Fucking nigger."
Game Devs: "You are not allowed to use our IP anymore."
Somes Conclusion: "Wow the devs are petty. DMCA is flawed"
Me:
I mean sure, if you boil the situation down to the point of absurdity that's what it is. But I guess you don't really want to debate the nuance of the topic. several people have demonstrated examples of the DMCA being problematic but hey, you do you.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Pewdiepie: "Fucking nigger."
Game Devs: "You are not allowed to use our IP anymore."
Somes Conclusion: "Wow the devs are petty. DMCA is flawed"
Me:
Pretty much. I encourage streamers to take it to court if the only real criteria they have to abide by is "dont be fucking racist" and that's too controversial. They can destroy the whole industry tomorrow if they want.
Otherwise I don't really care. Games aren't special. This applies to a million industries already.
Ok and whats the problem? Feelings? They sent a legal notice he took it down maybe they coulda settled it without a legal formal notice it really wouldnt have made a practical difference. You just dont like DMCAs? Theyre just documents. Its still their IP. Its better for them to be able to take it down for no reason regardless of how people "feel" about it, because its their personal property, not every fans, not every gamers, not for everyone to have an opinion on, than for it to be the other way around where everyone can use anything and you cant take it down unless you ask me nicely first
Chairmanchuck
Member
The problematic ones are the ones like Activision, Nintendo, WB/Sony etc. not some small indie dev using DMCA to not be associated with a racist.
The whole DMCA problematic is on YouTube for even having such a bad DMCA system in place.
I saw a copyright lawyer disagree with you so it really isn't "simple".
Gormenghast
Member
Uhm, I can't really believe that...
No one in the world was associating Pewdiepie's racism with Firewatch UNTIL this developer jumped headfirst into the opportunity and was rebroadcasted all over the world.
*Now* they are indeed somewhat associated with him, in a very visible way, even if it is to mark a difference. But before absolutely no one had Firewatch on their mind when discussing this. In fact most of us might even have forgotten Firewatch is a thing.
Chairmanchuck
Member
And I am a media law graduate and, at least in Germany, you would need to take it down if I tell someone to take down a video because it uses "my" material that is protected by copyright.
The infringement in that case would still be happening. Me, as a copyright owner, own the copyright to the textures, music, story etc. of that game. Some streamer has that video still up, is still "sharing" that material that is protected by copyright even though I revoked my permission.
I dont think its that different in America.
My uncle said you dont know what youre talking about so it really is
Am I doing it right?
What am I wrong about, what did this supposed copyright lawyer say?
BassForever
Member
Lets plays and streamers in the future are probably gonna have to sign up for contracts with developers/publishers to be allowed to stream their games for profit. Said contract would likely include a provision where if you do anything that would get a norma employee fired (like saying the n word at work) your content will be taken down as voiding the contract.