one of the progressive media outlets i follow calls them "social injustice warriors"
-
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
one of the progressive media outlets i follow calls them "social injustice warriors"
I think they would be ok with that label but they are easily triggered if you call them racists or white supremacists. They'll use every racial slur they know to defend themselves because in their eyes, the progressives and liberals are the real racists.
I hope companies like Ubisoft will make good of their DMCA guidelines to strike down the bigots.
Here's a fun thought experiment for any fool claiming censorship:
Imagine someone came to your house during a dinner party. All your guests are seated, enjoying themselves, when this person starts calling others a "fucking nigger" and paying people outside to hold up signs saying "gas the Jews."
Is it censorship to tell him to leave?
Don't bother answering, because the correct response is "clearing fucking not."
Imagine someone came to your house during a dinner party. All your guests are seated, enjoying themselves, when this person starts calling others a "fucking nigger" and paying people outside to hold up signs saying "gas the Jews."
Is it censorship to tell him to leave?
Don't bother answering, because the correct response is "clearing fucking not."
Gotdatmoney
Member
You don't even know what censorship is and you're claiming that it's us who don't think. You know what's not okay? Making a video where you call someone a fucking nigger, laugh about it then muse about how no one cares and it doesn't matter. You know what's not okay, you playing this stupid slippery slope bullshit where a company exercising their legal right to stand up against racism is wrong. You know what is not okay? This disingenuous crap about how this opens up a door to the removal of millions of videos that have stood for years and years and will continue to stand purely because of literal good will in the industry.
Miss me with this bullshit. Enough.
Copyright cannot be voided from inaction.
Fullstop, everyone needs to stop repeating and conflating this with Trademarks.
The ability for takedowns is an intrinsic part of protecting your copyrights.
That is literally the point of Copyright ownership...
So the way I understand it is that a whole lot of our economic system (among most other things) relies on "gentleman's agreements". It's neither efficient nor realistic to bog down the system with a ton of codified rules that cover every single possible edge case and every single possible interaction between relevant parties. What happens instead is that there are a bunch of more general guidelines and laws that cover issues on a big-picture level to prevent abuse and maintain civility and it's generally agreed upon by everyone involved in specific instances what is allowed and not allowed. When there are disagreements about what is allowed the judicial system exists as a means to, in essence, arbitrate these disagreements. And the system is designed so that the decision(s) of this judicial process can then be applied to later disagreements on the same issue. We even have a term for this, it's called Common Law. Anything that isn't explicitly covered by the laws in the books or by the precedents established by common law is this "legal gray area" that everyone is always talking about.
Lightning_Roller
Banned
People making arguments against censorship when it's about a game company stripping revenue from a racist being a racist they don't want no part of?
Quell surprise.
Quell surprise.
We all know that the only rights worth defending are the rights of racist shitheels.
and btw it's "Quelle surprise". quell is something else entirely
Lightning_Roller
Banned
Thanks for that. I knew it had an e.
llien
Member
I find it rather curious, actually, because as far as I know, Prince lost this:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...outube-with-prince-song-can-sue-for-fair-use/
UPDATE: yep, fair use:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/14/440363919/dancing-baby-wins-copyright-case
Context doesn't change value of fundamental rights.
At least those like me, who grew in USSR, find it obvious.
Bilingual jokes are great but it's hard to discern who's making a legitimate typo and who's making a joke.
I already don't think highly of French people proficiency in French so you'll excuse me for not expecting better in an English forum...
psychowave
Member
PDP is literally the biggest YouTuber ever with a huge following. There's no way going against him actually benefits them.
I support this, btw. These racist YouTubers need to face actual consequences for their actions.
Copyright does not require active defense and does not care about how you've enacted upon it with other people. Once again, people are thinking of trademarks.
That's a completely different context, and only uses a tiny snippet of the song.
I know everyone seems to like to bring up Nintendo's Creator Program, and despite some of it's glaring flaws, it is actually following standard multimedia licensing laws and procedure rather than giving blanket permission. Even down to them getting a cut of the money in revenue, that is normal media licencing procedure.
I remember we had a lawyer in that old thread talking about all this when the Nintendo Creator Program sparked a lot of controversy over the barebones games list and the ability to take some of the cut of revenue.
One of the ways I can see things moving too if someone were take Let's Plays to court and fails. But then you'd be asking, isn't that what MCM's are for, to handle the business end and protect their employees and users? You'd think so but they have been failing so spectacularly. Plenty of it negligence and not caring. MCM's have slowly been becoming a detriment to its users over time and if the industry gets shaken up, I don't see them getting any better.
I remember we had a lawyer in that old thread talking about all this when the Nintendo Creator Program sparked a lot of controversy over the barebones games list and the ability to take some of the cut of revenue.
One of the ways I can see things moving too if someone were take Let's Plays to court and fails. But then you'd be asking, isn't that what MCM's are for, to handle the business end and protect their employees and users? You'd think so but they have been failing so spectacularly. Plenty of it negligence and not caring. MCM's have slowly been becoming a detriment to its users over time and if the industry gets shaken up, I don't see them getting any better.
Lightning_Roller
Banned
If I don't want racist shitheels to profit from my work, I'm gonna make sure that happens. End of story.
King Tubby
Member
I understand the concerns about censorship, I really do, but this isn't actually a case of copyright holders expanding their reach. The issue is that Let's Plays have been in a total grey area for a while and it's coming to a head.
You're talking about a 30 second clip where a small, low quality portion of the song can be heard in the background. If that video contained the full song in a decent enough quality, they probably would have lost. It's not really the same thing.
You're talking about a 30 second clip where a small, low quality portion of the song can be heard in the background. If that video contained the full song in a decent enough quality, they probably would have lost. It's not really the same thing.
And this also glosses the fact that IP laws are treated in a case by case basis most of the time.
Even if by some miracle a LPer manage to get his/her day in court and manages to win, it doesn't preclude other from failing afterward.
That judgement doesn't affirmatively say that the video is fair use, but that Universal was wrong to issue a DMCA takedown notice without evaluating whether or not the video was fair use.
(I mean, it obviously is, but still.)
llien
Member
That's a completely misplaced statement. We are discussing legal side of things.
Hearing that song in the background vs hearing entire song
and
seeing someone play a game vs actually being able to play it.
I'm not that sure about "same thing".
On the other hand, Nintendo is quite successful in taking things down, I've heard.
Yeah, I'm frankly lost between lines on wiki.
Yea I'm 100% fine with this.
Only time I've seen Nintendo issue a take down was for a Kirby soundtrack and it was more a strike on the channel and not a DMCA, so the user had to take them down. It had just come out and was purchasable. Older stuff, they generally don't care about and I'm sure they also don't care much anymore about the Kirby soundtrack now seeing as I can find the OST to listen to on YouTube these days.
Everything else is is content ID so you're not gaining money off their work without permission. It's main flaw is YouTube in general and how YouTube handles content ID and how it can't differentiate between anything.
The point of the Nintendo comparison is not that the action Nintendo took was the same, it's to show that Nintendo's ownership of the copyright was absolute, and that despite the hoards of internet fanboys screaming about fair use and transformative works, nobody who actually knew what they were talking about dared to contest them.
Nintendo chose to force LPers into a licencing agreement and seize the monetization from anyone who didn't comply, and they were entirely within their rights to do so, despite how unpopular that decision was. If they had decided instead to issue takedowns and copyright strikes, they would have every right to do that as well.
Ahh! That makes more sense. I thought they were saying that Nintendo DMCAs plenty. Apologies. That was a failure of comprehension on my part.
James Scott
Banned
A weird side of this debate:
There's nothing illegal here until the courts say otherwise so we can just argue on the morality.
Are any of you seriously suggesting that the developer is morally in the wrong for wanting to distance themselves from one of the biggest Internet personalities that recently used one of the worst racial slurs out there as well as being a repeat offender?
They're not taking down a critical review which would make debate understandable.
Devs have been using this tool in a morally questionable way for years so it's not like the devs would be the first showing devs that they can do it.
Could they have done it another way? Maybe. It's pretty hard with how YouTube works. I don't think it matter that they did.
PDP deserves some form of consequences for his actions and even a copyright strike won't do anything to him
There's nothing illegal here until the courts say otherwise so we can just argue on the morality.
Are any of you seriously suggesting that the developer is morally in the wrong for wanting to distance themselves from one of the biggest Internet personalities that recently used one of the worst racial slurs out there as well as being a repeat offender?
They're not taking down a critical review which would make debate understandable.
Devs have been using this tool in a morally questionable way for years so it's not like the devs would be the first showing devs that they can do it.
Could they have done it another way? Maybe. It's pretty hard with how YouTube works. I don't think it matter that they did.
PDP deserves some form of consequences for his actions and even a copyright strike won't do anything to him
This is all that needs to be said.
I imagine that's considered work for hire.
ClosingADoor
Member
Now make that video 2 hours and play a Prince concert on a tv that is centered in the screen the whole time.
That example is nothing at all like a Let's Play. And it is actually a good example of fair use and shows that it works when needed.
Sports players do not own the rights for broadcasts and things like that. A football player can't put a whole match online on Youtube even if he plays in it.
The NFL fully owns the rights to all broadcasts and rebroadcasts of their games. The deals they make to allow TV network to show these games are unbelievably lucrative.
All this stuff is governed by contracts, so it's a different (and much clearer) situation legally. An actor usually doesn't have any rights to a movie they star in, but that's because they signed the right to use of their image over to the film company when they agreed to act.
http://blogs.dlapiper.com/mediaands...cast-footage-minnesota-court-offers-guidance/
Found this, scanned over it real quick, and going back over now.
Edit:
Sorry don't mean to derail, just not ready to accept gameplay isn't covered under fair use so I'm grabbing at straws.
Found this, scanned over it real quick, and going back over now.
Edit:
Sorry don't mean to derail, just not ready to accept gameplay isn't covered under fair use so I'm grabbing at straws.
JinjoUnchained
Member
It should all come down to Fair Use. YouTube should, in a perfect world, have governance that equally punishes both uploaders who violate copyright and companies that file false DMCA claims.
A review, a DF technical analysis, or channels like Arlo and Jim Sterling that use footage in gaming discussions clearly fall under Fair Use. As do video game music covers.
Let's Plays? That's more of a grey area. If the LPer is providing some entertainment value or content beyond simply showing game footage, then it's probably Fair Use, but that's at the discretion of the copyright holder. So I have no problem at all with them using their discretion to shut down a particular LPer using their content to spread hate. They have the right to determine that it's not Faur Use, in this case.
A review, a DF technical analysis, or channels like Arlo and Jim Sterling that use footage in gaming discussions clearly fall under Fair Use. As do video game music covers.
Let's Plays? That's more of a grey area. If the LPer is providing some entertainment value or content beyond simply showing game footage, then it's probably Fair Use, but that's at the discretion of the copyright holder. So I have no problem at all with them using their discretion to shut down a particular LPer using their content to spread hate. They have the right to determine that it's not Faur Use, in this case.
ClosingADoor
Member
You are right that there has not been a court case over Let's Plays yet. That is mostly because both the video makers and the companies involved have little to gain from pushing the issue as far at the moment. The expected outcome is however that it would not fall under fair use and as such, the game publisher can decide if they allow it or not.
I feel bad for the smaller channels but honestly this has always been the case for most lets play videos. They are not protected under fair use by any real standard and any dev/pubilser could have their videos taken down if they wanted to at any time for any reason. They aren't because the dev/publisher benefit alot from let's play. Its basically free marketing but at the same time, you have to get written content and the dev or publisher saying its ok is non binding.
The act of playing a game is a dance between player and maker.
I would dare say, they both have a stake in any value created through the combined performance.
..representing developers.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Does that make their knowledge of copyright law wrong?
Her work for developers obviously calls into question her interpenetration of the law concerning LPs and Fair Use, her predictions of possible court rulings, etc.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Lol no
You're operating under the assumption that any copyright lawyer not in favor of unrestricted use of someone else's work is unscrupulous
Netherscourge
Banned
I have no problem with it.
Developers, artists and musicians have so little rights as is. Most of their work is stolen by pirates right off the bat.
I'm glad they have at at least some say over who can stream their content and who can't.
Fuck PewDiePie. I wouldn't let him stream my games either. I'm not making games for a racist to profit from and the slippery slope argument is bullshit. People never had unlimited rights to stream this stuff in the first place.
Developers, artists and musicians have so little rights as is. Most of their work is stolen by pirates right off the bat.
I'm glad they have at at least some say over who can stream their content and who can't.
Fuck PewDiePie. I wouldn't let him stream my games either. I'm not making games for a racist to profit from and the slippery slope argument is bullshit. People never had unlimited rights to stream this stuff in the first place.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
So if it was written by a copyright lawyer representing YouTubers you'd agree with it?
Seeing as how they'd probably be working for free in that case I suppose it might be more trustworthy
I assume you mean Felix's lawyer?
Of course not.
I would handle it with the exact same amount of caution if not more since the author would have a client directly involved in the case.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
No, I mean a lawyer representing YouTubers in general, or whatever the opposite of a copyright lawyer representing developers would be, since you feel anything they put forth would be tainted.
Whose opinion would you accept?
12 Angry Men
Edit:
This was cited earlier in the thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhn6yrNzM3M
It seemed to lean towards my position so of course I jumped on it.
Treat with care.
I didn't go over his credentials.
MHWilliams
Member
French also represents developers, if that's the case, leaving you with no one to draw on.
Like I said, I didn't go over his credentials.
But I don't understand what either of them have to do with my opinion.
The issue has not been settled in a court of law,
Everyone is making conjectures, lawyer and laymen alike.
And we can keep pulling out the "..but ..but the lawyer said!!!" card out all night but I would still like to give my view, as a player, on the topic.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Here's a quick summary:
Most professionals believe LPs don't fall under Fair Use (however, there's no direct legal case on the matter). Reviews are specifically covered under Fair Use. There's no slippery slope here.
There's a mutually agreed upon non-agression pact between companies & streamers.
Companies don't force LPs down because they view them as extra marketing and the PR reaction would be negative.
Streamers don't want to go to court because they'd most likely lose which would set direct precedence for future cases changing the situation from "It's probably illegal but everyone benefits so we're going to look the other way" to "It's definitely illegal."
Companies tolerating LPs doesn't mean that LPs are protected by Fair Use.
Since most professionals believe LPs are copyright infrigement, companies don't need any other excuse to force a specific LP down.
Most professionals believe LPs don't fall under Fair Use (however, there's no direct legal case on the matter). Reviews are specifically covered under Fair Use. There's no slippery slope here.
There's a mutually agreed upon non-agression pact between companies & streamers.
Companies don't force LPs down because they view them as extra marketing and the PR reaction would be negative.
Streamers don't want to go to court because they'd most likely lose which would set direct precedence for future cases changing the situation from "It's probably illegal but everyone benefits so we're going to look the other way" to "It's definitely illegal."
Companies tolerating LPs doesn't mean that LPs are protected by Fair Use.
Since most professionals believe LPs are copyright infrigement, companies don't need any other excuse to force a specific LP down.