James Scott
Banned
Devs allow it since it's beneficial. They don't want his support after he came out as a racist.
This isn't hard to understand
-
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.
Eurogamer: Firewatch review-bombed following PewDiePie racism incident
- Thread starter Coxy100
- Start date
This isn't hard to understand
You're right. They had a legal right to take this video down and used it. I'll stop derailing the thread.
2001 or so.
cr_blah_blah
Member
Yeah, the thing is the racist, misogynist gamer assholes are going to co-op any somewhat legitimate issue to spew their regurgitated hate. They don't give a shit about the actual issues, it's just another excuse to be awful.
the_milkybar_kid
Member
Congratulations on reminding everyone on why the games industry will never be taken seriously. Dickheads.
James Scott
Banned
I don't see how it's not proper use of the system.
Devs don't want their IP being used by a racist.
This isn't censoring fair use or criticism.
Yep. And the people who haven't been following the flagrant abuse of DMCA takedowns on youtube/twitch/theinternet are going to see these cunts and assume "Oh, well complaining about DMCA takedowns is just a thing those assholes do."
TharpDaddy
Member
Not saying it's hard to understand, i'm responding to the people implying that the relationship only benefited pewdiepie. Campo Santo is perfectly within their rights to say they don't want the relationship to continue, but it's disingenuous to the conversation to say that PDP raked in money from their IP while they got nothing.
Well it's motivated by a sense of justice. It's good-hearted. But it isn't related to the actual copyright claim, and I don't think that really makes a difference in terms of their rights. Either the creator of a game has the right to takedown videos commenting on it or they don't.
I don't really have a horse in that race, but I understand people that do. Having a law or policy that everyone violates, and then only selectively enforcing that based on unrelated criteria is pretty abusable.
I'd rather go after his sponsors the old fashioned way. That makes more sense to me, personally.
I agree that it's not a good idea to use the DMCA for this purpose. But what it really underlines is that the DMCA is a bad law in general. There are two separate issues:
1. Is Campo Santo within their rights to use the DMCA as they did? Yes, most certainly.
2. Should the DMCA be used this way? No, but expecting companies not to exercise their legal rights is a fool's game.
So we can't just hope that companies, especially large companies, decide to be "nice" and not issue DMCA takedown notices. Review bombing is unlikely to stop large companies if they really don't like how their IP is being used. The only really solution is at the legislative level.
Finale Fireworker
Member
I really love Firewatch and I really love Campo Santo and they deserve so much better than this. But I suppose being hated by white supremacists is a good thing to be.
I've bought Firewatch and have recommended it to many others. I will continue to promote and enjoy their games. Hopefully this all comes back - somehow, someday - and blows up on PDP.
I've bought Firewatch and have recommended it to many others. I will continue to promote and enjoy their games. Hopefully this all comes back - somehow, someday - and blows up on PDP.
NightShift
Member
I'm looking at it more from the developers side. You can tell from Firewatch that they really cared about what they made and the intelligent, mature story they told. In no way would they want some childish racist associated with that.
7DollarHagane
Banned
I still think what campo Santo did was a bad idea.
Something like a donation to minority scholarship fund maybe 1 cent for every view their videos got from him would have been a more meaningful statement, even if it went along with the takedown.
Eventually a legal precedent has to be set about lets plays and gameplay footage. And I don't think its going to be beneficial to the industry because publishers will either have absolute power over it or no power over it. And either one isnt good.
Something like a donation to minority scholarship fund maybe 1 cent for every view their videos got from him would have been a more meaningful statement, even if it went along with the takedown.
Eventually a legal precedent has to be set about lets plays and gameplay footage. And I don't think its going to be beneficial to the industry because publishers will either have absolute power over it or no power over it. And either one isnt good.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I think what's annoying is how games journalism has been reacting to this DMCA move by Campo Santo. Giant Bomb and other platforms have complained about what message this sends or what precedent it sets. This isn't DMCA abuse, it's the owner of the copyrighted material choosing to assert their ownership over their content. I realize this could be bad for games journalism or YouTubers if widely adopted, but that's not DMCA abuse.
Here's an analogy for you. Let's say some YouTuber wants to provide his own play-by-play commentary or analysis of Monday Night Football every week. Is he allowed to do that? Hell no, and I don't think anyone would argue that the NFL doesn't have the right to stop that from happening. So why do we not want to afford video game creators the same right?
Currently, video game content owners find a benefit with allowing streamers and YouTubers to use their content. It's free advertising, it makes sense for them. But it's okay for Campo Santo to say, "We don't like PewDiePie's statements, and we don't want to be associated with him in any way, so we are ending his ability to use our content."
That's not DMCA abuse.
benicillin
Banned
Campo Santo are great people that don't deserve this at all.
The "gaming community" at large is an embarrassment and platform holders like Steam and Twitter offer absolutely no help or protection from dealing with sustained harassment campaigns from 'influencers' like PewDiePie.
The "gaming community" at large is an embarrassment and platform holders like Steam and Twitter offer absolutely no help or protection from dealing with sustained harassment campaigns from 'influencers' like PewDiePie.
In what way is this an "abuse" of the DMCA? This is expressly how the DMCA is designed. You can selectively enforce copyright all you like. You can say it's a bad use of the DMCA, and I would agree. But that's the DMCA itself.
Foxy the Fox
Member
I am not against the expresion of the video game community, that way we can know how does the average video game player feels and companies will be in touch with them. Of course that's a positive and a negative, but still a tool to understand their logic and motivations.
I would be surprised if Camposanto hasn't anticipated this.
Always wondered, what does it mean? Do you need an aproval on your hobbies?
We will still get great games.
I would be surprised if Camposanto hasn't anticipated this.
Always wondered, what does it mean? Do you need an aproval on your hobbies?
We will still get great games.
I get that and I'll be 100% honest in saying that I don't know what a better action would have been on their part to make a moral stand. The whole situation is just shit because diminishes another very real issue.
I feel like I'm missing your point bc wtf
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There should be exceptions to lock down user-reviews for cases like this where you just know shit is going to happen after the action taken by the developers.
Too much to ask for I know.
Too much to ask for I know.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Any comparisons to passive video entertainment mediums is irrelevant. It has not been decided if playing a game and filming yourself doing it is a transformative work that's protected by fair use.
Giant bomb just sees the slippery slope involved in giving developers power to shut down voices online.
In the short term, sure, who cares if pdp is hurt because he's a festering asshole, but what if that meant giant bomb couldn't do quick looks anymore or play games on stream because there's too much risk of dmca takedowns if they play kingdom hearts and disney doesn't like the jokes that they make?
No one is giving anyone anything. That power has always been there. Companies are not just now waking up to it, they are well aware of it.
I don't agree at all.
The power dynamic between publishers and gamers is very lopsided, and review bombing (when used for legitimate purposes) helps rectify that to at least some extent. It's invaluable.
And I say this as someone who, to at least a small extent, is on the "publisher/developer" side in this dynamic, and not just the gamer side.
Ploid 3.0
Member
If so, I'd count that as a win for Firewatch. "Buy my game so you can review it low for your lord and savior, Pewdiepie."
RPGCrazied
Member
So, PS4 or PC version? Which is better?
jim2point0
Banned
2 wrongs don't make a right.
What Campo Santo did sets a dangerous precedent, and I can see people flipping the fuck out for whenever this is abused in a way that people don't agree with. DCMA abuse is already pretty fucking awful as it is.
This situation had nothing to do with Firewatch. The game has been out for ages now. There's no reason to mess with the DCMA system just to take a jab at someone for doing something shitty. This hurts gaming videos in general far more than it hurts PewDiePie.
What Campo Santo did sets a dangerous precedent, and I can see people flipping the fuck out for whenever this is abused in a way that people don't agree with. DCMA abuse is already pretty fucking awful as it is.
This situation had nothing to do with Firewatch. The game has been out for ages now. There's no reason to mess with the DCMA system just to take a jab at someone for doing something shitty. This hurts gaming videos in general far more than it hurts PewDiePie.
There is no way any court in the US will say that playing an entire game on camera from front to back is fair use.
7DollarHagane
Banned
I know a lot of people don't like crowbcat for reasons but Bethesda probably would love to take this down and make criticism like this not allowed.
https://youtu.be/yvGXCisAaR4
https://youtu.be/yvGXCisAaR4
Mr. Phellps
Member
The biggest case for Valve to only allow reviews after the refund period.
Pankratous
Member
Bombed with good reviews I take it?
P.S - if anyone is on the fence with this game, absolutely buy it. Fantastic.
P.S - if anyone is on the fence with this game, absolutely buy it. Fantastic.
Then why haven't they used DMCA to take it down? Bethesda know the tool is there. They have some of the smartest and most aggressive lawyers in the industry, who have demonstrated countless times their ability to proetect Bethesda's IP. They know they'd be well within their legal rights to do so.
The reason they haven't is because they know it is a bad look to remove bad opinions about your product. Someone using DMCA because they don't want their product associated with a racist will not wake them up to the fact they can take down videos using their IP. It won't make them change their mind and start using it.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I get what Giant Bomb's concern is, but the truth is that it has always been there, and what Campo Santo has done doesn't change that. They are all at the whim of video game publishers/devs.
And I disagree that comparisons to passive video entertainment are irrelevant. They're both allowed to use copyrighted material under the same standard of fair use. GB's Quick Looks are essentially commentary and criticism, albeit elongated over the typical fare in the industry. It's likely this would be protected. But a full Let's Play of a game with PewDiePie doing whatever it is that he does would not.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
agree 100%.
I understand Campo Santo frustration, but you should not do the DMCA thing.
Permanently A
Junior Member
Yelp has a great policy of locking reviews once a place shows up in the news, Steam must adopt this.
TharpDaddy
Member
PewDiePie has spewed racial slurs (n word with a hard r) multiple times while streaming. In the wake of people finding out he's a racist, Campo Santo has issued a DMCA takedown on his Let's Play of their game. They essentially revoked his right to use their IP.
The issues revolving around this are two-fold. I imagine in the case of the people review bombing, they're doing it as revenge for a perceived attack on a youtuber they like. The other conversation is if this was a right use of DMCA and the implications, due to a DMCA previously being seen as the 'nuclear option' for copyright violation.
But it reinforces it. And I think it's ok to criticize them for that.
Or maybe review bombing shouldn't be a thing for any reason?
I agree, but Valve is loathe to do anything that would require their own employees to mind the store. Which is frustrating, to say the least.
Gotdatmoney
Member
There is literally no slippery slope with what Campo Santo did. I encourage anyone who believes it is to start wondering why no streamers want to bring this forward to the courts.
Frankly, of all the possible reasons to assert a copy right against streamers if a dude calling someone a fucking nigger then laughing about how no one cares is what made a company finally grow a backbone that says more about how shitty all the other publishers are.
I also don't actually believe there is a good faith argument about why this situation is dangerous. The streamera literally only stream at all due to good faith by publishers.
Frankly, of all the possible reasons to assert a copy right against streamers if a dude calling someone a fucking nigger then laughing about how no one cares is what made a company finally grow a backbone that says more about how shitty all the other publishers are.
I also don't actually believe there is a good faith argument about why this situation is dangerous. The streamera literally only stream at all due to good faith by publishers.