• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

ScribbleD
Member
(09-13-2017, 12:43 PM)
ScribbleD's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nanashrew

And with everything that I've been saying on this page, with YouTubers being entertainers and making deals and getting paid to be influencers, they are part of the entertainment business. What we're seeing is actually classic stuff in how PDP is being treated by business partners and possible business ventures for his stupid and selfish antics and racism. This has become a very big business far outside of fair use these days, especially many having to work with companies for additional money to market things like Lootcrate because of the adpocolypse.

PDP being the liability that he is, the DMCA stuff is small fry and completely normal in the entertainment world and even warranted. But he's such a liability it's only going to get worse. Not only hurting himself, but absolutely everyone.

https://twitter.com/TheOnlyMikeJ/sta...605826/photo/1

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!
Steroyd
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:14 PM)
Steroyd's Avatar

Originally Posted by Quote

Uh, what do you think the motive is then?

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
(09-13-2017, 01:17 PM)
ClosingADoor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Steroyd

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.

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
(09-13-2017, 01:18 PM)
TheThreadsThatBindUs's Avatar

Originally Posted by Star Orpheus

So because some people who probably weren't going to buy those games in the first place are pricks your ok with ruining it for everyone else?

I've bought several games I would have had no interest in previously thanks to LP'rs. Plus letting me see games I wouldn't be able to play otherwise.

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
(09-13-2017, 01:21 PM)
chromatic9's Avatar

Originally Posted by KyleCross

YouTubers and streamers have been told for years that Let's Plays and streaming a game isn't fair-use, but they never listened because "Well, I heard it was. So it is." I grew increasing more and more concerned for the well-being of many Let's Players and streamers because they became more and more dependent on it when the rug can be pulled out from under them at any time. Many of them are now being quite vocal over recent DMCA actions and how their livelihoods are at stake I want to feel bad for them, but they knew this wasn't kosher, or they chose to never educate themselves on the matter.

Like the recent thing with H3H3 being sued because they used a clip from another YouTuber and provided criticism that was absolutely fair-use. The YouTuber sued them anyways and sure enough, H3H3 won the lawsuit because it was fair-use. That resulted in a bunch of Let's Players celebrating because they somehow thought that somehow applied to video games...? LIke, how can you make this your job and not do some research on it?

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
(09-13-2017, 01:28 PM)
Star Orpheus's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheThreadsThatBindUs

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.

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.
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 01:31 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar
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"

Originally Posted by Steroyd

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,

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
Steroyd
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:36 PM)
Steroyd's Avatar

Originally Posted by ClosingADoor

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

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.
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 01:39 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Steroyd

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.


Define DMCA abuse, because I don't think "DMCA you dont agree with" is what it means
BronsonLee
Banned
(09-13-2017, 01:41 PM)

Originally Posted by Steroyd

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.

There's a difference between Disney (they signed a significant contract with him) and Campo Santo (they made a game and he played it)
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:43 PM)

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Define DMCA abuse, because I don't think "DMCA you dont agree with" is what it means

You know you don't have much of a case when even the Firewatch dev himself agrees that his use of DMCA was inappropriate.

"I wish there was a clear way to say we don’t want our work associated with hate speech, even accidental hate speech if that's what it was," Vanaman told BuzzFeed News. "I regret using a DMCA takedown. Censorship is not the best thing for speech and if I had a way to contact PewDiePie and take the video down, I probably would. He’s a bad fit for us, and we’re a bad fit for him."

Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 01:45 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

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
(09-13-2017, 01:47 PM)
stan423321's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Define DMCA abuse, because I don't think "DMCA you dont agree with" is what it means

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
(09-13-2017, 01:48 PM)
ClosingADoor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Steroyd

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.

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.

Originally Posted by spineduke

You know you don't have much of a case when even the Firewatch dev himself agrees that his use of DMCA was inappropriate.

"I wish there was a clear way to say we don’t want our work associated with hate speech, even accidental hate speech if that's what it was," Vanaman told BuzzFeed News. "I regret using a DMCA takedown. Censorship is not the best thing for speech and if I had a way to contact PewDiePie and take the video down, I probably would. He’s a bad fit for us, and we’re a bad fit for him."

From that quote I take he just wanted to handle it different, but couldn't. Doesn't mean it is abuse.

Originally Posted by chromatic9

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.

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
Banned
(09-13-2017, 01:49 PM)
BladeoftheImmortal's Avatar

Originally Posted by Betty

Yeah, i'm well aware.

I don't get it? You were DMCAd?
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 01:50 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by stan423321

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.

Do you think that applies here?
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 01:50 PM)

Originally Posted by Kyzer

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.

You're being disingenuous - his motivations for the takedown had nothing to do with copyright infringment. It's abuse clear and cut.
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 01:53 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

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
(09-13-2017, 01:54 PM)
ClosingADoor's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

You're being disingenuous - his motivations for the takedown had nothing to do with copyright infringment. It's abuse clear and cut.

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
(09-13-2017, 01:54 PM)
Chairmanchuck's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

You're being disingenuous - his motivations for the takedown had nothing to do with copyright infringment. It's abuse clear and cut.

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.
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 02:01 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar
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.
Eidan
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:02 PM)
Eidan's Avatar
I'm ok with this. YouTube is a cesspool.
nynt9
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:03 PM)
nynt9's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Do you think that applies here?

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.
Steroyd
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:03 PM)
Steroyd's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

Define DMCA abuse, because I don't think "DMCA you dont agree with" is what it means

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.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:06 PM)
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.
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 02:08 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by nynt9

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.

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.


Originally Posted by Steroyd

I don't think "DMCA a Youtuber for saying thing I don't like" is a valid reason either,

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
(09-13-2017, 02:11 PM)
ClosingADoor's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

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.

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
(09-13-2017, 02:12 PM)

Originally Posted by Boke1879

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.

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
(09-13-2017, 02:14 PM)
Diprosalic's Avatar
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.
atomsk
Party Pooper
(09-13-2017, 02:17 PM)
atomsk's Avatar

Originally Posted by Aureon

A video showing a 30s clip with a crash, or a review mentioning crashes and using clips as proof, absolutely falls under fair use.

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.
spineduke
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:18 PM)

Originally Posted by ClosingADoor

That you don't think the DMCA is a good law has little to do with this all and is a totally different subject.

Try reading the thread title again.
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 02:18 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar
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:

Chairmanchuck
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:18 PM)
Chairmanchuck's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diprosalic

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.

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
(09-13-2017, 02:19 PM)
Interfectum's Avatar

Originally Posted by Eidan

I'm ok with this. YouTube is a cesspool.

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.
Heigic
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:20 PM)
Revoking the license and preventing future content from being made makes sense, but it applying to content that was made with the licence is probably something for courts to decide.
Yearsoflurking
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:20 PM)

Originally Posted by Kyzer

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 doesn't suddenly become everyones property.

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
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 02:21 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Heigic

Revoking the license and preventing future content from being made makes sense, but it applying to content that was made with the licence is probably something for courts to decide.

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...)
Steroyd
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:21 PM)
Steroyd's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

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

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.
SG-17
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:22 PM)
SG-17's Avatar
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
(09-13-2017, 02:22 PM)
ClosingADoor's Avatar

Originally Posted by spineduke

Try reading the thread title again.

Yes, which says it is all legal what they did and your argument that it is abuse is not a valid one.

Originally Posted by Heigic

Revoking the license and preventing future content from being made makes sense, but it applying to content that was made with the licence is probably something for courts to decide.

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
(09-13-2017, 02:22 PM)
boiled goose'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.

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.
nynt9
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:24 PM)
nynt9's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kyzer

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
(09-13-2017, 02:25 PM)

Originally Posted by Kyzer

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.
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 02:25 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Steroyd

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.

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
(09-13-2017, 02:25 PM)
Chairmanchuck's Avatar

Originally Posted by nynt9

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.

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.
Heigic
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:27 PM)

Originally Posted by Kyzer

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...)

I saw a copyright lawyer disagree with you so it really isn't "simple".
Gormenghast
Member
(09-13-2017, 02:28 PM)

Originally Posted by spineduke

"I wish there was a clear way to say we donít want our work associated with hate speech, even accidental hate speech if that's what it was," Vanaman told BuzzFeed News.

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
(09-13-2017, 02:28 PM)
Chairmanchuck's Avatar

Originally Posted by Heigic

I saw a copyright lawyer disagree with you so it really isn't "simple".

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.
Kyzer
Banned
(09-13-2017, 02:28 PM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Heigic

I saw a copyright lawyer disagree with you so it really isn't "simple".

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
(09-13-2017, 02:31 PM)
BassForever's Avatar
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.

Thread Tools