Are you saying being racist is equivalent to being black and gay?
Most countries have anti-discrimination laws for a reason that protect minorities, but not racists.
-
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
Are you saying being racist is equivalent to being black and gay?
Most countries have anti-discrimination laws for a reason that protect minorities, but not racists.
Mass Effect
Member
That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Two of those are not like the others...
Eh, there's room for disagreement here. Ryan Morrison (the "Videogame Attorney") argued on his podcast that Santo Campo is well within their rights to rescind the express license granted to Pewdiepie to monetize their IP at any time, unless there is language stating that such a license is non-revocable, which there is not.
You're wrong.
Basically, there exists no settled case law stating whether LPs are legal or illegal. However, any lawyer who knows anything about copyright or IP generally agrees that LPs would be deemed illegal if a case involving a LP ever made it to trial. Fortunately, nobody has ever gotten around to forcing such a suit to trial, so LPs remain in a legality grey zone solely by the virtue of devs/publishers and the LP community not rocking the boat too much.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
lol what the fuck
LudicrousSpeed
Member
It'd be shitty, but it'd be no less legal, because the actual matter is that we're still talking about copyright infringing material in both cases.
When you're talking about LPs, the amount of material that would genuinely fall into fair use is exceedingly tiny. Anything that doesn't fall into fair use is fair game for a copyright owner to issue a takedown notice against, at which point whether you get a notice is going to be down to factors that have nothing to do with legality. The legality argument ended when you posted the copyright infringing material. Whether or not a copyright holder pursues a takedown is based entirely on whatever factors they so choose. They could decide to issue notices on everything, on nothing, to issue a notice against every 5th item they see, to toss a coin every time, to roll a 20 sided die, to issue takedowns where players made a specific decision in the game, literally any reason they so choose. Because copyright doesn't demand you protect it in all cases, so whatever mechanism they want to use to exercise discretion is up to them. If that mechanism is shitty, I will call out the publisher for using that as their rubric, but still accept that, yes, this is still a legitimate takedown notice if the material claimed warrants it.
About the transformative aspect of let's plays, how would that work between different genres?
I can totally see a Firewatch let's play working as an audio file you listen to while you play it yourself. The person recording it just needs to be a bit more specific about what they're doing now, and where they're headed to.
But what about something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I59It79o3g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdb85PoRgvU
How would that work as anything other than a video?
In movies it's much more black and white, there's no movie you can't have a "let's watch" through audio, but for some games it's just not possible to give the same experience as actually watching their footage.
I'd say it also applies to speedruns, they're doing things the devs never even thought were possible, there's a unique element added to the game, that even if there was no commentary at all, it just wouldn't be the same as playing through the game yourself.
I'm not saying those videos are at risk or anything like that, just really interested in the particularities of videogames when it comes to defining transformative works and fair use. You can make a very good case for a Firewatch playthrough with no commentary being nothing more than a tool for people to experience it without paying, but you can't say the same for a Dark Souls speedrun, or a DMC4 playthrough made by a high level player, and convince anyone who plays games at all.
I can totally see a Firewatch let's play working as an audio file you listen to while you play it yourself. The person recording it just needs to be a bit more specific about what they're doing now, and where they're headed to.
But what about something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I59It79o3g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdb85PoRgvU
How would that work as anything other than a video?
In movies it's much more black and white, there's no movie you can't have a "let's watch" through audio, but for some games it's just not possible to give the same experience as actually watching their footage.
I'd say it also applies to speedruns, they're doing things the devs never even thought were possible, there's a unique element added to the game, that even if there was no commentary at all, it just wouldn't be the same as playing through the game yourself.
I'm not saying those videos are at risk or anything like that, just really interested in the particularities of videogames when it comes to defining transformative works and fair use. You can make a very good case for a Firewatch playthrough with no commentary being nothing more than a tool for people to experience it without paying, but you can't say the same for a Dark Souls speedrun, or a DMC4 playthrough made by a high level player, and convince anyone who plays games at all.
...what? Did you quote me on accident?
stage plays would be the analogy here. they're technically fixed works, but you can change them on the fly as they are performed, but your changes to the play would not be transformative, since the material worth of the performance is still the original play.
Speedruns would just be like the abridged version of a book or an edited version of a movie.
Aren't actors performances in a play copyrightable?
Easily the dumbest thing in this thread.
Comparing minorities to racists. I just can't.
Everything safe bet has said is stupid and wrong.
But you are completely missing the point of what he said.
Would be a derivative work because anything they are performing would still need the rest of the play to have material value. Actually, it'd probably be considered "work for hire" so the creators of the play, who are almost always the production company for said play, own anything the actors do while working as actors in the play.
The biggest problem about this as a whole isn't that anyone is trying to defend an idiot, it is more what happens to everyone else.
Let's be honest: No one here things that PewDiePie is the victim here. Hell, I'm shocked I haven't seen a petition started to remove the guy off of youtube for the damage that he has done over the course of this year. The problem though is that while there is legal cause here to remove the videos from him, where is the limit? Where is the fine line that doesn't lead us to situations where people abuse the DMCA takedowns again?
Even before this nonsense happened, the whole "Where's the fair use" is still very much an issue here where people could easily abuse it to either get other people's channels removed if they just hate someone without reason, and the worst that happens to them is nothing compared to the person they harassed.
...
It is scary to think of these two issues could get interwoven together now. In the case of PewDiePie, he basically deserves it. For anyone else though, they could just point to someone and say "He did what PewDiePie did" with no actual evidence and could get away with it with no repercussions.
Let's be honest: No one here things that PewDiePie is the victim here. Hell, I'm shocked I haven't seen a petition started to remove the guy off of youtube for the damage that he has done over the course of this year. The problem though is that while there is legal cause here to remove the videos from him, where is the limit? Where is the fine line that doesn't lead us to situations where people abuse the DMCA takedowns again?
Even before this nonsense happened, the whole "Where's the fair use" is still very much an issue here where people could easily abuse it to either get other people's channels removed if they just hate someone without reason, and the worst that happens to them is nothing compared to the person they harassed.
...
It is scary to think of these two issues could get interwoven together now. In the case of PewDiePie, he basically deserves it. For anyone else though, they could just point to someone and say "He did what PewDiePie did" with no actual evidence and could get away with it with no repercussions.
I refuse to acknowledge slippery slopes, sorry.
Good. LP is always a shady deals in my opinion.
I would be fine if something like Nintendo's policy existed taking a % cut from being able to do straight Let's Plays, the only problem is the automated system is shit and it flags even Reviews.
The irony being the DMCA has already fallen through slippery slopes and is being abused today for a number of motives. Being willfully blind about the abuse of technology and law is just asinine.
Neither are legal.
Felix did not commit copyright infringement.
Felix had permission from Campo Santos to stream the game.
1. Not legally binding
2. The permission was revoked anyway. Making all instances on his channel infringe on copyright.
Let's not even get into that they were already infringing on copyright because there was no written agreement between the devs and felix to have videos of it up.
Permission to stream the game is clearly posted on the developers website.
Ignore first half of the post, continue making ignorant statements. :thinking
Campo Santo revoked his permission.
EDIT: Dangit, I didn't even notice they got banned.
Makes sense. It's a bit shitty imo that it would fall under the same category as someone just normally playing through the game and doing nothing noteworthy with it other than their commentary which could be offered separately, but it is what it is.
Thanks for the answer.
Ok, but where are the examples of it being used to target specific streamers/lets players?
Where's the precedent? Where's the specific examples?
Stone Ocean
Member
There was that issue with Wargaming aiming for a youtuber who was criticizing some tanks for being pay to win, I believe Jim Sterling covered it?
ClosingADoor
Member
That guy was part of a Wargaming program. Not paid, but a contributor. Wargaming says it was because of the language he used. There is more info about it on Kotaku: https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/05/n...wn-after-developer-threatens-copyright-claim/
I always find it weird that some people conflate content property owners with content creators.
I do not understand why people are so into private property that they justify corporate domination.
Racist assholes are racist assholes. And they ought to be shunned, accordingly. We as Youtube viewers and subscribers are the gatekeepers of such behavior. Perhaps we needs be more proactive in our shunning. Maybe we ought to devise a means to also blacklist every one of us who continues to watch and support racist/sexist/hate speaking streamers, as well. The streamers are a problem, but so is every single person who gives them a sub. Not just in the fact that they support hate, but also in that they provide "justification" for even more corporate domination and crippling of consumer rights.
chromatic9
Member
No. The game is being played as the devs/pubs intended. Nothing transformative about it.
A board game would be the same as a video game as random unique play compared to a multiplayer video game, both are still under copyright. There's no fair use, you're showcasing a copyrighted IP.
Maybe a grey area is if you modify the board or video game. If a video game allows mods and it's changed a lot in the stream and even playing different it might be hard to say it's not transformative.
Some don't seem to know that Nintendo take down stuff at will and you need a contract with them. There's no contesting it as a stream or lets play of the game will more than likely not be covered under fair use or transformative works. But please, all these people claiming transformative works, why don't you club together and set a precedent then.
Yearsoflurking
Member
You took a bad bet
http://steamcommunity.com/app/242800/discussions/0/810938810874945823/
https://www.popehat.com/2014/11/11/...at-reviewer-jim-sterling-gets-fair-use-wrong/
https://www.gamingonpc.com/general-...ician-blackmails-youtubers-with-dmca-strikes/
https://www.polygon.com/2015/7/30/9...dependent-youtube-channel-hostage-war-thunder
http://massivelyop.com/2017/05/22/w...mes-criticism-on-youtube-in-three-easy-steps/
Some examples - i've been following these issues for a long time. Just don't take my criticism of the DMCA as some sort of tacit endorsement of PDPs comments. The guy is awful and needs to get booted off the web. I just don't agree with the mechanisms used as a lot of bad actors have weaponized it for far less noble reasons.
Which is complete and utter bullshit. They never gave a single shit about his language until he criticized their game.
Not to mention them using "hate speech" and "homophobic slurs" claims as the reason to take the video down. I don't know about that guy's other videos, but the one criticizing the premium tanks didn't have any. And if the claim is true about his other videos, that only makes Wargaming look even more pathetic, since they only seem to be able to take action against it when someone says something bad about their game.
ClosingADoor
Member
Yeah, the case is a bit different then the Firewatch one. I can get they don't want their contributors to do this, but well, he also isn't employed or paid by them. But if you are a gaming website going on a few minutes rant saying "fuck this, fuck this game, this company" you are basically guaranteed to break your relation with that company.
Wonder if such a video would actually fall under fair use because of the criticism aspect. He does use the images from the game to illustrate his points.
Wargaming did get some bad PR from this, which would stop most publishers from doing it. I imagine an EA or Activision taking down a critical piece about Battlefield or COD probably wouldn't be worth the negative headlines for them for example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah7LYxysuJ8
Pewdiepie did a 13 minute video on the DMCA/Copyright issue about Firewatch..maybe worth a new thread? Basically doesn't understand the copyright law and just rambles about it without seemingly doing much research on the matter sticking to his own personal opinion thinking his Let's Plays are fine.
Pewdiepie did a 13 minute video on the DMCA/Copyright issue about Firewatch..maybe worth a new thread? Basically doesn't understand the copyright law and just rambles about it without seemingly doing much research on the matter sticking to his own personal opinion thinking his Let's Plays are fine.
Is PDP actually going to end up forcing this issue? LPer's have a lot to lose if he fucks this up even more.
James Scott
Banned
It might be the other way around. I think PDP might be able to get more help to fight against it if he really wanted to.
Belives he *could* win in court if they were to challenge him, hes happy to delete all videos and any videos that devs request but yeah seems to believe hes in the right.
If he just did some research he'd find that many who thought they were in the right lost in court by the thousands and why we have so many legal precedence in other fields and mediums.
It would really be something if the guy who popularized Let's Plays winds up being the one to destroy it all.
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
Definitely new thread worthy imo.
I doubt itll completely destroy them(if anything they'll be formally contracted either individually or youtube/twitch themselves with the revenue being split 3 ways instead of 2.) But yea, interesting times coming up
Ryzaki009
Member
if he forces this issue and it blows up in his face.
I wonder if then his fans might go "oh wait he fucked us over?"
James Scott
Banned
Well, i'm not sure if destroying it would be the right word. Don't think publishers would take down any LPs, maybe more will ask for a cut?
But in any case, they'd likely settle out of court or PDP would most likely win. He'll go to the same people H3H3 got a ton of funding from trying to fight for "freedom of speech".
Rumblebones
Banned
Coming back to this after seeing so many big YouTubers defend Pewdiepie.
Fuck 'em all. If YouTube ain't going to step up and root out these pieces of shit, I hope developers rain down DMCA takedowns.
Fuck 'em all. If YouTube ain't going to step up and root out these pieces of shit, I hope developers rain down DMCA takedowns.
Errr the Attorney that defended H3H3 and helped them create the FUPA fund to help others youtubers with similar legal battles has outright said Peediepie is not in the right
Like Trump supporters? People don't like to admit they were wrong or tricked they will simply double down and say it was everyone else's fault.
True. Either verdict is gonna change everything tbh.
James Scott
Banned
I meant the funding. GoFund me with a push from a ton of other YouTubers including the biggest one on the platform should easily trounce a small indie studio
Evolution of Metal
Member
You are lying.
He is using multiple expert sources which contradict each other therefore explains how it is a grey area, yet he personally that his videos would be protected by the fair use due to the amount of commentary in them. Then he proceeds to talk how Firewatch didn't even do it for the copyright reasons which would give him an upper hand in court. He also explains that developers should contact him so he can remove the videos themselves instead of getting the copyright strikes to shut down his channel.
I didn't care about him or understand why he was so popular until awhile ago. I will enjoy his downfall.
Alt account? He gave 2 sources one from The Video Game Attorney the one who helped H3H3 defend themselves in court and another which contradicts what he said that is not "multiple" I sure as hell wouldn't agree he's done much research or at least shown his findings in the video itself. Your simply agreeing with what he said believing they don't have a leg to stand on because they didn't do it for 'copyright reasons' it doesn't matter because it simply doesn't fall under fair use as far as we know, the law could change and involve in court yes but right now the DMCA Is legal.
If he bought a license to use for his videos then yes he would have a much better legal grounds but as far as I'm aware and the few attorneys I have followed that almost exclusively do YouTube copyright issues say Sean is in the legal right as the law states no need to shoot the messenger.