• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

KSweeley
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:04 AM)
KSweeley's Avatar
According to this article, DMCA takedowns targeting specific people are fully legal and that absolutely no reasoning is required for a DMCA takedown: https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/12/16...ca-legal-abuse

Firewatch creators can target PewDiePie with DMCA takedowns, and it’s perfectly legal
You don’t need a reason to file a claim

Campo Santo co-founder Sean Vanaman, writer of Firewatch, has made his feelings known about a livestream broadcasted on Felix “PewDiePie” Kjellberg’s channel where he used a racial slur. However, he’s also triggered a debate on the respective rights of streamers and content owners by promising to issue a DMCA takedown for any PewDiePie video using Campo Santo content.

This has become another impetus for an ongoing disagreement concerning the legal standing of Let’s Play streams and videos. In my role as a video game attorney, this presents an interesting question for my clients. What’s the best approach to handling this new marketing tool while protecting the game’s brand and content? Vanaman’s approach in particular has set off serious debate, as his tactic may be seen by some as an abuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

But from the perspective of the content owner, Vanaman’s reasoning is irrelevant. You see, a licensor doesn’t need a reason to withhold a license. That also means that they can withhold a license for any reason. In the case of a Let’s Play video, a content owner like Campo Santo would argue that they can revoke their permissive, non-exclusive license to stream (granted to end users) against anyone who uses their content in a way they find offensive, or in a way that associates their game or brand with something against their values.

This is the approach Vanaman has taken. He doesn’t want his studio’s game associated with Kjellberg’s channel or content, which is, arguably, a perfectly legitimate basis to withdraw a license for which you need no legitimate basis to revoke.

Evil Monkey DTT
Banned
(09-13-2017, 07:10 AM)
Man I couldn't be more split on this issue. On one hand, DMCA attacks ruin youtubers and have been greatly abused. Look at the shit that happened to Jim Sterling from the idiots that ended up suing him. When reviewers or people on youtube have their lively hood attacked based on emotional or political opinions by the people who make the games then every video is in question. It's power that might not be fully deserved.

On the other hand fuck pewdiepie, and fuck the youtubers defending his ass. I couldn't get it more from the developer's side of thing, this attaches to your brand when you let them play your game. And I still don't think let's plays are entirely transformative works, there are too many videos that don't have any editing other than the voice overs yet the devs aren't supposed to have a say.

So I don't really know.... where I line up. I hate saying I'm the center on an issue but I fully am here.
Zurick
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:11 AM)
Zurick's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evil Monkey DTT

Man I couldn't be more split on this issue. On one hand, DMCA attacks ruin youtubers and have been greatly abused. Look at the shit that happened to Jim Sterling from the idiots that ended up suing him. When reviewers or people on youtube have their lively hood attacked based on emotional or political opinions by the people who make the games then every video is in question. It's power that might not be fully deserved.

On the other hand fuck pewdiepie, and fuck the youtubers defending his ass. I couldn't get it more from the developer's side of thing, this attaches to your brand when you let them play your game. And I still don't think let's plays are entirely transformative works, there are too many videos that don't have any editing other than the voice overs yet the devs aren't supposed to have a say.

So I don't really know.... where I line up. I hate saying I'm the center on an issue but I fully am here.

The worst part is that this is even a debate. It should have never even happened.
Betty
The vision that was Planted in my brain
Does not still remain
(09-13-2017, 07:12 AM)
Betty's Avatar
Yeah, i'm well aware.
Farsi
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:13 AM)
Farsi's Avatar

Originally Posted by Betty

Yeah, i'm well aware.

.
Cuningas de Häme
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:16 AM)
Cuningas de Häme's Avatar
Most of the time Youtubers are using other people's creations, it makes sense that the creator of said stuff can take it away any time they want. I don't see a problem, Youtuber is welcome to make original content (like many, many of them do).
JusDoIt
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:21 AM)
JusDoIt's Avatar
Not even sure why this is a debate. PewDiePie is using their intellectual property to make content, which he then generates revenue from.

They don't want their property affiliated with the content he makes.

Case closed.
Deeke[VRZ]
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:22 AM)
Deeke[VRZ]'s Avatar
Pewds' influence is like a 30 foot game of Jenga on the 10th turn. He has no control over his tall influence and it typically makes a mess of things for people at the bottom.

I just wish he'd take it more seriously and not make it harder for other YouTubers/create uncomfortable situations that quickly spiral out of control/ignite controversies that often affect a whole community and industry arm.
Suzushiiro
Banned
(09-13-2017, 07:22 AM)
It's pretty much a "you're not (legally) wrong, you're just an asshole" thing- yeah, the law says they can do it, but it's still a blatant abuse of the DMCA and sets the precedent for people to abuse it in the same way against much more sympathetic people.

Beyond that, I think the worst thing about this particular use of the DMCA is that they took an incident where most gaming Youtubers were seemingly about to turn on Pewdiepie at full force (since the Adpocalypse earlier this year was generally seen as being caused by the article about him and most people figured this would just make it worse) and threw a wrench in it all by making a lot of Youtubers want/need to somewhat defend PDP, as while they were pissed at him potentially fucking it up for all of them even more if there's one thing that people who make their living Youtube-ing about games hate more than anything else it's blatant violation of what most of them consider to be the definition of fair use rights.

So yeah, they're completely in their rights to do it, but they're still complete and total fucking assholes for doing it, and in doing so they've made the entire situation worse for just about everybody except the one guy they were trying to hurt.
fivepersondude
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:25 AM)

Originally Posted by JusDoIt

Not even sure why this is a debate. PewDiePie is using their intellectual property to make content, which he then generates revenue from.

They don't want their property affiliated with the content he makes.

Case closed.

Exactly.

No one wants(I hope) to be associated with someone using their IPs and putting out ideas that they do now want to be associated with, they should have some way to stop that.
Boke1879
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:27 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar
Youtube needed a more robust system in place for a long time. Now you're seeing them scramble. Advertisers are now well aware of what's happening on youtube and they don't want to be associated with potentially shitty people.

What PDP, DaddyOFive and others have done have directly hurt the pockets of people trying to make it on YT.
Maximo
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:33 AM)
Maximo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Betty

Yeah, i'm well aware.

Hahha Betty nooooooooo.
Ehker
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:34 AM)

Originally Posted by JusDoIt

Not even sure why this is a debate. PewDiePie is using their intellectual property to make content, which he then generates revenue from.

They don't want their property affiliated with the content he makes.

Case closed.

Originally Posted by fivepersondude

Exactly.

No one wants(I hope) to be associated with someone using their IPs and putting out ideas that they do now want to be associated with, they should have some way to stop that.

Sure, but let me ask, what if someone uses this excuse to block someone saying something negative about their product? Seems to me this would also allow content creators to block anything negative about their property. We have movie and game reviews that are negative and show their IP, but if anyone can shut it down you could say goodbye to that.
David___
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:36 AM)
David___'s Avatar

Originally Posted by Ehker

Sure, but let me ask, what if someone uses this excuse to block someone saying something negative about their product? Seems to me this would also allow content creators to block anything negative about their property. We have movie and game reviews that are negative and show their IP, but if anyone can shut it down, you could say goodbye to that.

An actual critique/ review video would fall under fair use
Ehker
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:37 AM)

Originally Posted by David___

An actual critique/ review video would fall under fair use

OK, I'm not familiar with this. So what separates these? If Pewdiepie gave an opinion would he be exempt?
Boke1879
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:40 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ehker

OK, I'm not familiar with this. So what separates these? If Pewdiepie gave an opinion would he be exempt?

Opinion on what?
DigitalScrap
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:40 AM)
DigitalScrap's Avatar
I always find it weird that people think that the real content creators shouldn't have rights when it comes to "content creators" (a term I find hilarious when it comes to most streamers/you tube celebs) using their content.

Without the originators' content, most of these people would have absolutely nothing to use as base material.

If these people do something offensive or simply something the actual creator (that owns the rights to the content) deems unacceptable, they should be able to restrict the public use of their content - even if it means that the beloved "content creator" loses a few dollars.

I don't understand why people are so into the fandom that they justify these piggybackers.
Ehker
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:40 AM)

Originally Posted by Boke1879

Opinion on what?

On the game.
Yukinari
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:42 AM)
Yukinari's Avatar
Makes me worried for smaller channels. Pewdiepie setting dangerous precedents with his carelessness.

And yes im aware it can happen at anytime and is the right of the owner of the media.
Boke1879
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:42 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ehker

On the game.

Well sure, but I'd suspect after his latest "slip up" alot of people wouldn't want their products associated with him.
N3DS
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:42 AM)

Originally Posted by Ehker

Sure, but let me ask, what if someone uses this excuse to block someone saying something negative about their product? Seems to me this would also allow content creators to block anything negative about their property. We have movie and game reviews that are negative and show their IP, but if anyone can shut it down you could say goodbye to that.

IIRC Nintendo has already been doing this. And angry Joe was pretty upset about it.
TheSaddestSort
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:42 AM)
TheSaddestSort's Avatar

Originally Posted by Betty

Yeah, i'm well aware.

Boke1879
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:43 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar

Originally Posted by Yukinari

Makes me worried for smaller channels. Pewdiepie setting dangerous precedents with his carelessness.

Unfortunately those are going to be the people hurt the most.
Ehker
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:43 AM)

Originally Posted by Boke1879

Well sure, but I'd suspect after his latest "slip up" alot of people wouldn't want their products associated with him.

Yeh but you see the problem. If you have to judge a game to show video of it the whole thing becomes a dumb loophole that anyone can get around.
besada
Banned
(09-13-2017, 07:44 AM)
besada's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ehker

Sure, but let me ask, what if someone uses this excuse to block someone saying something negative about their product? Seems to me this would also allow content creators to block anything negative about their property. We have movie and game reviews that are negative and show their IP, but if anyone can shut it down you could say goodbye to that.

They'd defend themselves as actual Fair Use. The issue with LPs is that pretty much no one who understands copyright thinks they'd fall under Fair Use in an actual trial.

Reviews that use a small part of the game for review purposes are absolutely shielded by Fair Use and there's a ton of precedence for it, in part because unlike LPs they only show short clips.

People keep imagining a slippery slope, but there's a pretty consistent set of principles used to determine Fair Use, and reviews are on one side of it and LPs on the other. It's not so much a slope as a pretty obvious step. You can't rebroadcast the entirety of someone's copyrighted work without their permission.
Boke1879
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:46 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ehker

Yeh but you see the problem. If you have to judge a game to show video of it the whole thing becomes a dumb loophole that anyone can get around.

If anything it's going to be what Nintendo does now. Some companies will actively stop people from making money of their stuff.

Like I said. Youtube is scrambling because shit is hitting the fan for them. They should have take a hardline approach to this shit years ago.

But they let people do their own thing and run free so to speak. Now these people have huge followings and a lot of their despicable behavior is getting in the news. Advertisers don't want to be associated with that so they tell youtube to clean shit up.

This is the result.
FlutterPuffs
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:47 AM)
FlutterPuffs's Avatar
Even Vanama regretted using takedown for the videos.

Like I discussed in a previous thread, even while this is legal, the best step to take is always to first contact the Youtuber with a C&D complaint. If he doesn't take down the video, then use the Takedown feature.
The Wart
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:47 AM)
The Wart's Avatar

Originally Posted by Suzushiiro

It's pretty much a "you're not (legally) wrong, you're just an asshole" thing- yeah, the law says they can do it, but it's still a blatant abuse of the DMCA and sets the precedent for people to abuse it in the same way against much more sympathetic people.

Beyond that, I think the worst thing about this particular use of the DMCA is that they took an incident where most gaming Youtubers were seemingly about to turn on Pewdiepie at full force (since the Adpocalypse earlier this year was generally seen as being caused by the article about him and most people figured this would just make it worse) and threw a wrench in it all by making a lot of Youtubers want/need to somewhat defend PDP, as while they were pissed at him potentially fucking it up for all of them even more if there's one thing that people who make their living Youtube-ing about games hate more than anything else it's blatant violation of what most of them consider to be the definition of fair use rights.

So yeah, they're completely in their rights to do it, but they're still complete and total fucking assholes for doing it, and in doing so they've made the entire situation worse for just about everybody except the one guy they were trying to hurt.

I don't understand what is remotely "abusive" about any of this. If someone builds their livelihood on material they have no legal right to, that's on them, and maybe they should reevaluate their business strategy. No one has any legal or moral obligation to allow random people to profit from their IP.
Sangetsu-II
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:48 AM)
Sangetsu-II's Avatar
Meh, let them do whatever they want. This is the digital era we live in, we lost our rights a long time ago.
Messofanego
Banned
(09-13-2017, 07:51 AM)

Originally Posted by JusDoIt

Not even sure why this is a debate. PewDiePie is using their intellectual property to make content, which he then generates revenue from.

They don't want their property affiliated with the content he makes.

Case closed.

Yup. Both Firewatch (Campo Santo) and Year Walk (Simogo) videos from Pewdiepie's channel can't be viewed. What's wanted to be done is done.

If Youtube isn't going to ban Pewdiepie, this is one of the few avenues where developers can exert some power to dissociate themselves from a racist.
fivepersondude
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:52 AM)

Originally Posted by Ehker

Sure, but let me ask, what if someone uses this excuse to block someone saying something negative about their product? Seems to me this would also allow content creators to block anything negative about their property. We have movie and game reviews that are negative and show their IP, but if anyone can shut it down you could say goodbye to that.

Pretty sure that has always been the case. No one wants the negative publicity from shutting down negative opinions, it's an opinion. To me that doesn't fit with what is going on.
Yukinari
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:53 AM)
Yukinari's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sangetsu-II

Meh, let them do whatever they want. This is the digital era we live in, we lost our rights a long time ago.

I dont think this is a healthy attitude to have and just further persuades people to avoid all digital.

Its a good thing consumers stopped the Xbone DRM.
dottme
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:53 AM)
dottme's Avatar
If I'm reading the opening correctly:
- when I buying a game digitally, I'm just buying a license to play the game from Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft...
- if they want, they can decide they don't like me and end the license just like this?

There is some missing details or this is really frightening.
David___
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:54 AM)
David___'s Avatar

Originally Posted by dottme

If I'm reading the opening correctly:
- when I buying a game digitally, I'm just buying a license to play the game from Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft...
- if they want, they can decide they don't like me and end the license just like this?

There is some missing details or this is really frightening.

This has nothing to do with buying games.
DigitalScrap
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:55 AM)
DigitalScrap's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Wart

I don't understand what is remotely "abusive" about any of this. If someone builds their livelihood on material they have no legal right to, that's on them, and maybe they should reevaluate their business strategy. No one has any legal or moral obligation to allow random people to profit from their IP.

This. 100% this.
Ms.Galaxy
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:56 AM)
Ms.Galaxy's Avatar

Originally Posted by dottme

If I'm reading the opening correctly:
- when I buying a game digitally, I'm just buying a license to play the game from Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft...
- if they want, they can decide they don't like me and end the license just like this?

There is some missing details or this is really frightening.

This topic isn't related to buying games, but technically yes. They have every right to literally remove it from your library and make sure you never access it again. Thankfully, they won't because the PR disaster would be so horrendous that its not worth the headache and there's no real benefit to doing it in the first place.
rrs
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:57 AM)

Originally Posted by DigitalScrap

I always find it weird that people think that the real content creators shouldn't have rights when it comes to "content creators" (a term I find hilarious when it comes to most streamers/you tube celebs) using their content.

Without the originators' content, most of these people would have absolutely nothing to use as base material.

If these people do something offensive or simply something the actual creator (that owns the rights to the content) deems unacceptable, they should be able to restrict the public use of their content - even if it means that the beloved "content creator" loses a few dollars.

I don't understand why people are so into the fandom that they justify these piggybackers.

for the most part, companies are fine (not Nintendo) with people making money off of let's plays of varied edited levels as the company gets free advertising or at cost of a game key, and the people can make money for the work put into such videos. Also consider how twitch/YT have public ranks for views/streams and losing out on this cheap marketing is usually bad.

Some people, however, are big and nasty enough that it works as an anti-ad, drives away people from making videos, and has now reached this point.
Farsi
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:58 AM)
Farsi's Avatar
If these studios don't want to be associated with a certain content creator then do the right thing and make it be known early on. Don't let the video give you a massive amount of free promotion and sales then decide to fuck the promoter afterwards when the sales dry up. That's just not right.

Thankfully most studios seem to understand it's a two way street.
IlGialloMondadori
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:58 AM)
IlGialloMondadori's Avatar

Originally Posted by JusDoIt

Not even sure why this is a debate. PewDiePie is using their intellectual property to make content, which he then generates revenue from.

They don't want their property affiliated with the content he makes.

Case closed.

This. Not sure why this is even a problem. they made the game, they can decide who they want to make money off of it.
xxracerxx
Don't worry, I'll vouch for them.
(09-13-2017, 07:59 AM)
xxracerxx's Avatar

Originally Posted by dottme

If I'm reading the opening correctly:
- when I buying a game digitally, I'm just buying a license to play the game from Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft...
- if they want, they can decide they don't like me and end the license just like this?

There is some missing details or this is really frightening.

You are reading this completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Farsi

If these studios don't want to be associated with a certain content creator then do the right thing and make it be known early on. Don't let the video give you a massive amount of free promotion and sales then decide to fuck the promoter afterwards when the sales dry up. That's just not right.

Thankfully most studios seem to understand it's a two way street.

1. I don't think it is necessary for game developers to say they don't want racists to use their content, it should just be known.

2. How are they to know upfront who is going to be broadcasting their products and if they approve of their message?
David___
Member
(09-13-2017, 07:59 AM)
David___'s Avatar
I'm honestly wondering where Twitch falls into this considering they're entire revenue model(afaik) is pretty much people buying bits/subs to support streamers playing games. In that case they're also making money from other people's IP as well
Sad Affleck
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:00 AM)
Sad Affleck's Avatar

Originally Posted by DigitalScrap

If these people do something offensive or simply something the actual creator (that owns the rights to the content) deems unacceptable, they should be able to restrict the public use of their content - even if it means that the beloved "content creator" loses a few dollars.

I don't understand why people are so into the fandom that they justify these piggybackers.

On the first bolded sentence: I know that people hate 'slippery slope' arguments but to me it is crystal clear that this will be abused to high heaven. "Something the actual creator deems unacceptable" is way too vague and can lead to some serious manipulation on the part of the publisher or developer. For instance, it would allow the actual creator to take down a video showing the game crashing. It would also allow the actual creator to effectively blacklist Youtubers and critics if he's upset about past coverage. One negative comment during a Let's Play could be enough to take down the whole thing. I am not at all comfortable with giving developers and publishers that kind of power.

On the second bolded word: These piggybackers make content that can literally make or break a game. Many of them are extremely talented, work very hard to produce quality content at a regular basis and deserve their success.

I would fully support a law that clearly defines the cases in which a creator can take down videos. Racism and hate speech should definitely be one of them. Otherwise I would prefer no such possibility at all rather than this vague "I can take your video down for any reason" clause.
Seesaw15
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:03 AM)
Seesaw15's Avatar

Originally Posted by Suzushiiro

It's pretty much a "you're not (legally) wrong, you're just an asshole" thing- yeah, the law says they can do it, but it's still a blatant abuse of the DMCA and sets the precedent for people to abuse it in the same way against much more sympathetic people.

Beyond that, I think the worst thing about this particular use of the DMCA is that they took an incident where most gaming Youtubers were seemingly about to turn on Pewdiepie at full force (since the Adpocalypse earlier this year was generally seen as being caused by the article about him and most people figured this would just make it worse) and threw a wrench in it all by making a lot of Youtubers want/need to somewhat defend PDP, as while they were pissed at him potentially fucking it up for all of them even more if there's one thing that people who make their living Youtube-ing about games hate more than anything else it's blatant violation of what most of them consider to be the definition of fair use rights.

So yeah, they're completely in their rights to do it, but they're still complete and total fucking assholes for doing it, and in doing so they've made the entire situation worse for just about everybody except the one guy they were trying to hurt.

There was never going to be a unified turn.

This is fine. I like let's plays but if the creators want to take down their content so be it.
Evolution of Metal
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:04 AM)

Originally Posted by DigitalScrap

This. 100% this.

And you are 100% wrong. If it is about profits, you can redirect the monetization if you own the content. DMCA takedown nukes the video so it is not possible to watch.

Anyone who speaks about profits or revenue on the DMCA takedowns does not understand the current problem.
Linkstrikesback
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:04 AM)
Linkstrikesback's Avatar

Originally Posted by Farsi

If these studios don't want to be associated with a certain content creator then do the right thing and make it be known early on. Don't let the video give you a massive amount of free promotion and sales then decide to fuck the promoter afterwards when the sales dry up. That's just not right.

Thankfully most studios seem to understand it's a two way street.

And how do you propose they determine beforehand who, out of all the people on YouTube, are going to end up like PDP who end up spouting racist nonsense?
Suzushiiro
Banned
(09-13-2017, 08:06 AM)

Originally Posted by The Wart

I don't understand what is remotely "abusive" about any of this. If someone builds their livelihood on material they have no legal right to, that's on them, and maybe they should reevaluate their business strategy. No one has any obligation to allow random people to profit from their IP.

Emphasis on "what most of them consider to be the definition of" fair use rights. It's not even really letter of the law vs. spirit of the law so much as the spirit of the law as the people who enforce it see it vs. the spirit of the law as the rest of the world tends to see it.

The thing with copyright in the internet era is that there's a wide swath of things that can by the letter of the law be DMCA'd/C&D'd or otherwise have legal action taken against but are generally seen as victimless crimes since they arguably aren't actually harmful to the copyright holders. And by and large people generally see legal action against victimless crimes as bad regardless of what the laws on the books say, be they against gay sex/marriage or drugs or making videos about video games and posting them on the internet.

Does anyone here honestly believe that Campo Santo and Firewatch would be harmed by the continued existence of a presumably year-old video showing footage of their game on Pewdiepie's channel? Shit, does anyone think Pewdiepie loses anything by the videos being DMCA'd off his channel? Hell, if anything he almost certainly gains from it, since now a lot of people who would otherwise be full-time condemning him now have to simultaneously defend him as a victim of what they rightfully see as DMCA abuse.

And as I said above, that's the dumbest fucking thing about this whole thing- on top of the backlash to Campo Santo it almost certainly is helping more than harming the one person they were trying to hurt from the move.
Tazmin
Junior Member
(09-13-2017, 08:06 AM)

Originally Posted by IlGialloMondadori

This. Not sure why this is even a problem. they made the game, they can decide who they want to make money off of it.

.
Boke1879
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:09 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar

Originally Posted by Suzushiiro

Emphasis on "what most of them consider to be the definition of" fair use rights. It's not even really letter of the law vs. spirit of the law so much as the spirit of the law as the people who enforce it see it vs. the spirit of the law as the rest of the world tends to see it.

The thing with copyright in the internet era is that there's a wide swath of things that can by the letter of the law be DMCA'd/C&D'd or otherwise have legal action taken against but are generally seen as victimless crimes since they arguably aren't actually harmful to the copyright holders. And by and large people generally see legal action against victimless crimes as bad regardless of what the laws on the books say, be they against gay sex/marriage or drugs or making videos about video games and posting them on the internet.

Does anyone here honestly believe that Campo Santo and Firewatch would be harmed by the continued existence of a presumably year-old video showing footage of their game on Pewdiepie's channel? Shit, does anyone think Pewdiepie loses anything by the videos being DMCA'd off his channel? Hell, if anything he almost certainly gains from it, since now a lot of people who would otherwise be full-time condemning him now have to simultaneously defend him as a victim of what they rightfully see as DMCA abuse.

And as I said above, that's the dumbest fucking thing about this whole thing- on top of the backlash to Campo Santo it almost certainly is helping more than harming the one person they were trying to hurt from the move.

Or maybe dude just doesn't want his video associated with a person that has done one too many fucked up things. It's literally that simple.
Seesaw15
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:10 AM)
Seesaw15's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evolution of Metal

And you are 100% wrong. If it is about profits, you can redirect the monetization if you own the content. DMCA takedown nukes the video so it is not possible to watch.

Anyone who speaks about profits or revenue on the DMCA takedowns does not understand the current problem.

That's the point. The creator doesn't want to be associated with a guy who says racial slurs.
joecanada
Member
(09-13-2017, 08:11 AM)
joecanada's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ehker

Sure, but let me ask, what if someone uses this excuse to block someone saying something negative about their product? Seems to me this would also allow content creators to block anything negative about their property. We have movie and game reviews that are negative and show their IP, but if anyone can shut it down you could say goodbye to that.

The op stated let's plays didn't it? Not reviews ... There could be a big difference potentially

Also even though it's a bit shitty I think exceptions can be made for special shitheads ... Sometimes 2 wrongs do make a right it's called punishment and deterrent

Thread Tools