Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
His uncle works for nintendo, didn't you know?
-
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
His uncle works for nintendo, didn't you know?
ClosingADoor
Member
You don't associate Coca-Cola with racism, but they still don't want their ads showing up before racist videos. Plus the devs didn't want someone like Pewdiepie to make money from Let's Plays for their games anymore.
This is the way these things work for tv and such. If Nintendo goes on Jimmy Fallon to show the new Mario, contracts are signed for that for example.
Chairmanchuck
Member
There are already similar contracts out there, that most of the time arent disclosed. There was some article about it somewhere. Wonder if I can still find it.
Heck. In the early 00s some pubs did such contracts when they sent you a review copy. The German PC magazine Gamestar did a big article about one publisher using those with clauses "You are not allowed to say a lot of bad thing about our game."
You are aware DMCA only takes the video off the channel for 2 weeks and then Firewatch devs then need to sue if they want to take it further, it would be much more permanent and cost effective if they could ask PDP to take the video off permanently.
And I don't like how DMCA's are being used not for what they are, there's a lot of shit out there that I support the concept of but not the execution.
So I didnt just answer your entire post? Youre gon a just ignore that. And you didnt just backout of the argument by saying im beyond debating nuance by quoting a separate post that wasnt even directed at you as if thats all i had to say? Do you see how youre doing the thing youre saying im doing?
Do you have a rebuttal to my response to your earlier post or are we just gonna paint pictures of each other cuz i can do that too.
I have approached the topic and addressed the nuances and why they not only dont apply to this case but why this case is a terrible hill for you to die on, both in terms of the social implications of defending pdp, but also because of the straight up fact that legally theres no there there. The devs are within their rights and its not dmca abuse, unless you really wanna dig that ditch for yourself of how dmca'ing someone for saying fucking nigger is "abuse" and not good motivations. But I guess you dint really want to debate the topic, as youve demonstrated by skirting having to respond to any of these points that ive made repeatedly and choosing instead to respond to my most joking post with a gif and backing out of the argument prematurely while incinuating that I am beyond being able to comprehend nuance. You just keep moving the goal posts to say that the only argument youre making is that dmca is problematic in general whilst simultaneously claiming this is about nuance. But hey, do you.
Gormenghast
Member
He doesn't. Who goes watching a year and half old video from Pewdiepie? It's pennies at best.
It's clearly not the reason why you'd go out of your way to affect an old video most people forgot it even existed. And again until they release a new videogame the problem is a non-problem. It's not about money, and it's certainly not about association, since it's only now they are associated with this by having spoken loud and clear to participate in the controversy.
Again, no one was thinking "Firewatch" until Firewatch deliberately jumped in.
ClosingADoor
Member
That is only the case if the channel files a counter-claim. If they don't, the video is just gone.
It is a non-problem to you, it is not to the developers or they would not have taken this step. And "it is pennies at best" is still income.
Yes.
Taking a short clip of someone and mocking them is fair use. The fact that that is fair use does not mean that broadcasting a video of yourself playing through an entire game is fair use.
You're free to read the decision in that case to understand why it was ruled fair use and convince yourself that the same logic wouldn't apply to Pewdiepie.
Pretty much. I know it feels different for streamers who think about the industry differently because of the upstart nature of it for so many (and it's still important to recognize the copyright ownership by those streamers of the new, resulting work even if publishing it has complications), but not everything is Fair Use. Particularly LPs. This is along the same lines as making an independent film that prominently names and features branded apparel. One of those companies can raise the issue for any number of legally sound contentions. Yes, the film is a new work, but it also uses material that makes publishing it at odds with the rights of others. Damage claims are very easy to understand in the context of things like associating a brand with white supremacy.
I'm very much about highlighting the valid, novel aspects of streaming: The presentation of the game and the performance by the player, and just as importantly, the character of the streamer. Those absolutely result in a new work. But that doesn't answer question by the original game publisher of their rights how they can regulate their work's use in other media. A DMCA takedown should generally mean the content holder is willing and able to persue legal action if the work is put back up after their takedown period expires.
What do you think DMCAs are for?
Also, do you think your idea of what dmcas are for or arent is relevant to the law?
---
I honestly feel like some of yall are making a big mistake and thinking this is just another dmca abuse case and are hurling yourselves into this conversation because of how you feel about that topic, while trying to somehow downplay the importance of this specific case being about pdp saying fucking nigger.
This is not the hill for you to die on.
Yall are making a big mistake. Stop now.
You are hurting your cause. Save this for an actual example worth fighting for.
Gormenghast
Member
And you think that elaborate explanation sounds more plausible than:
"I have this tool to hurt a racist, I will use it."
?
Why does it need to be about the money?
Is it that much of a stretch to believe that the man has a moral compass that tells him he doesn't want to feel complicit with a racist and their racist tendencies by letting them retain the use of his property?
BassForever
Member
Of course and that would be something lets players and streamers have to comply with. "lets plays and streams are advertising" is fine, but then you have to comply with the same rules and regulations anyone who works in marketing/advertising does as well. Your job wouldn't be to give an honest opinion of the game in the form of a full game lets play/stream, it would be to advertise the game in the form of a limited - full game lets play/stream. If you want to be more critical of a product you'd have to ask for a review copy and show off the game as a 4th estate media person.
Chairmanchuck
Member
So the copyright owners of songs who didnt want their songs to be played at Trump rallies were in the wrong?
TheHellsLord
Member
In the end the whole thing comes down to wether or not something is considered fair use/journalistic use or not.
When it comes to Reviews showing certain gameplay scenes and especially coverage that uses content that is explicitly provided for promotional purposes (e.g. Trailer footage) it's pretty sure that this is what fair use provisions were created for and DMCA strikes should not be used to take down such content.
On everything else we simply don't know how it would hold up in court. For one you definitely are using copyrighted assets in your own creation. If you download a simple picture from a website today and put it on your own website you can be in for a world of pain for copyright infringement. That's already true of something as simple as the image that represents a button design - you can imagine how quickly that can cause issues for something as complex as a computer game's visual representation.
Let's plays - especially when they cover the whole game's story - are almost certainly not fair use. Even if there's considerable original content by the Let's Player like voice overs it would most certainly count as a derivative work which still would require the original creators permission.
It might again be a different story for coverage of multiplayer matches - although when you look at sports leagues there definitely are license agreements in place to make sure that the whole game can not be broadcast without payment while highlight reels in the news are fewed as fair use.
So legally not much is really clear until somebody actually takes it to court.
When it comes to Reviews showing certain gameplay scenes and especially coverage that uses content that is explicitly provided for promotional purposes (e.g. Trailer footage) it's pretty sure that this is what fair use provisions were created for and DMCA strikes should not be used to take down such content.
On everything else we simply don't know how it would hold up in court. For one you definitely are using copyrighted assets in your own creation. If you download a simple picture from a website today and put it on your own website you can be in for a world of pain for copyright infringement. That's already true of something as simple as the image that represents a button design - you can imagine how quickly that can cause issues for something as complex as a computer game's visual representation.
Let's plays - especially when they cover the whole game's story - are almost certainly not fair use. Even if there's considerable original content by the Let's Player like voice overs it would most certainly count as a derivative work which still would require the original creators permission.
It might again be a different story for coverage of multiplayer matches - although when you look at sports leagues there definitely are license agreements in place to make sure that the whole game can not be broadcast without payment while highlight reels in the news are fewed as fair use.
So legally not much is really clear until somebody actually takes it to court.
ClosingADoor
Member
What are you arguing exactly? They gave their reasons for doing this, among which is:
"I am sick of this child getting more and more chances to make money off of what we make."
https://twitter.com/vanaman/status/906983575337107456
He wanted to take a stance. It does not matter if it is about pennies or thousands of dollars. He doesn't want Pewdiepie to make any more money from their games.
THATS what you interpret this as?
Why is it not "A racist is using my things and I dont want them to"? Taking away permission to use their own property to generate revenue is "dmca weaponization" and "using a tool to hurt a racist". Some of yalls perspective i swear...
Gormenghast
Member
If they complain a year and half later, YES.
What makes sense is to forbid use going forward. But right now Pewdiepie's videos of Firewatch are completely forgotten, and not involved directly into any racist act. They are themselves a non-issue. No one ever associated Pediepie and Firewatch in a specific way, or even thinking about it.
You don't bring up a thing that is buried unless you want to, for other reasons.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
None of this implies you should have any inherent right or entitlement to be able to do this.
Sure having the convenience of full game playthroughs on YouTube as a gamer is beneficial, but it's not a right and isn't really fair the developer if said videos cause some gamers to forgo spending money on a game (which is impossible to dismiss).
If the only benefits to LPs are a bit of free enjoyment to us gamers, then I think it sensible to accept that we've enjoyed our free ride, but nothing free ever lasts forever.
The reason is the one they stated: they want to establish a norm of not tolerating racist speech in gaming communities. We know this isn't simply about deciding that they don't want their game being streamed for copyright reasons because they told us it's not about it.
Chairmanchuck
Member
What if Trump was a really great citizen, then all of a sudden it comes out he is a racist, sexist human being, but all of the Videos you can find of YouTube about his rallies are still using your music and all of a sudden your music might be associated with that person, that turned out to be racist?
It might come back to haunt you and I, for sure, wouldnt want to be associated with someone, even if it was half a year ago, a year ago or 3 years ago.
Besides stuff like LP's arent buried. People still watch old LP's. Maybe someone new is introduced to PDP and wants to watch his Firewatch LP, since they like him. People still watch old AVGN episodes or old episodes of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses or even JonTron.
I could have sworn pewdiepie just called someone a fucking nigger on livestream a few days ago has it been a year and a half already? And you know if you put a video on youtube it stays up right? And people can still watch it. And it still generates revenue. It wasnt a live event that happened once on a specific date so now its too late. Theyre not asking people to delete it from their browsing history, theyre making him take it down from youtube.
Nitpicker_Red
Member
It's only a legal issue if PDP wants to counter the DMCA takedown right?
Naïvely, I'm sure they can come to an understanding (in a future case): them not sending PDP any review copies, and asking directly/publicly PDP to remove all his previous videos from their company if he complies, without having to come to DMCA. He can't refuse due to his current position. And it would even have a greater psychological effect on him if he had to do it on his own accord than being forced by DMCA.
While DMCA is the easiest/quickest way to solve the issue of not wanting someone to cover your game, it's not the only one or the one with the less friction.
Naïvely, I'm sure they can come to an understanding (in a future case): them not sending PDP any review copies, and asking directly/publicly PDP to remove all his previous videos from their company if he complies, without having to come to DMCA. He can't refuse due to his current position. And it would even have a greater psychological effect on him if he had to do it on his own accord than being forced by DMCA.
While DMCA is the easiest/quickest way to solve the issue of not wanting someone to cover your game, it's not the only one or the one with the less friction.
Gormenghast
Member
I agree with that: trying to establish a norm.
But it's different from what I commented originally: "we dont want our work associated with hate speech"
Because this second argument here is defeated by the fact that absolutely no one in the world was making that association. They made it by loudly steeping in. To: establish a norm.
I mean, "being associated with", implies "proximity". And there wasn't ANY proximity between Firewatch and Pewdiepie in September 2017.
I guess this is a question of semantics. I believe, and I think Campo Santo believes, that good people standing by and not proactively taking a stand against hate speech is tacit endorsement, or at the very least signaling "I'm okay with this". Campo Santo searched their heart and decided that they wanted to loudly say "we're not okay with this", in the most visible way they could.
Like, sure, nobody thought Campo Santo was endorsing PDP before this, but this is a very sharp act of dissociation, and that matters.
Gotdatmoney
Member
What is the issue with this? They have the total right to strip use for any reason theu want. The hill you want to die on is that they used it on a guy who laughed off calling someone a fucking nigger?
Streamers are not going to win this going to court. Publishers look the other way because they generally don't give a shit as its mostly beneficial for everyone. If playing by the rules means sometimes they take a moral stand are we seriously calling that a slippery slope?
Oh I see, thanks
ZeroGravity
Member
The difference is that a racist can still purchase Coca-Cola and do whatever they want with it, and there's nothing Coca-Cola can do about it. A company cannot dictate who can and cannot purchase their products, and what that person does with said product after it's purchased
...unless that person is using a company's service, in which case they must abide by that service's rules. Which is why I think this is a YouTube problem, NOT a Firewatch problem. It's up to YouTube to decide whether they want people like PewDiePie to have a platform on their service, not video game developers abusing DMCA takedowns deciding it.
The fact that there is so much of an industry and official support and technology and money investment from companies such as Google, Twitch, the HW manufacturers, the majority of game software developers, etc on something so flimsy as a "gentleman's agreement" blows my mind.
I guess it reminds me of CD ripping software 20 years ago, or something.
ClosingADoor
Member
If I search for "Let's Play Firewatch" the first results are all older then a year. So yes, there is proximity there.
And it doesn't matter if the video was old if people can still watch it. Let's say you record an advertisement with a celebrity for your product, and that celebrity then makes racist remarks. Do you continue to air that advertisement under the argument it was recorded before those remarks were made? Of course not.
Yes, Youtube has a role to play here. But if they do nothing, then the developers have a good reason to use the avenues open to them to distance themselves from Pewdiepie and people like that.
Give War A Chance
Member
I think I agree with this. I know it feels like it could be a slippery slope, but that's not reason enough for me to let people spout off hate speech. Morally, I believe this is the right thing to do, and I'm well aware that I am not the arbiter of morality.
It's Campo Santo's game. Pewdiepie didn't make/create any part of it but was making money off of using it. If they're willing to lose whatever exposure they would get by no longer having Pewdiepie be able to make content with their game, then that's fine and they should stop him from using their property.
I would love to debate the hypothetical other side once it presents itself, but until then, fuck hate speech and those that use it, and people should do what they can to combat it.
Gormenghast
Member
Yes, it's semantics. But you can see there's a whole different logic in what you just said.
As you said in that last line: they wanted to send a message. They didn't act because they were involved, they decided to be involved to stand up and send a message.
It wasn't a defensive move (no one ever thought Pewdiepie + Firewatch = racism), it was about taking a stand.
Chairmanchuck
Member
Thats what copyright owners who distance themselves after someone said something racist do too, so whats so bad about it?
If Ronaldo says "fucking nigger", the sponsors would drop.
If Messi says something racist, the advertisment agency wouldnt continue airing those ads.
They do it to distance themselves from it and sending a message.
Gormenghast
Member
Nothing. The other topic of this thread is that the DMCA might be an improper tool for that goal.
Yall keep throwing the word abuse around. What the fuck do you guys think dmcas are for? Also do you think theyre like resource intensive like part of the planet had to die to file that dmca dont abuse it! Oh no you could have just talked to them dont tell me you FILED A THING. Literally not letting pdp use their IP after saying "fucking nigger"? Is abuse? This is the "slippery slope" yall are worried about? Holy shit. Think about what you are arguing for a second.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Yeah, the fact that both consoles have built in streaming makes this a potential minefield. What publishers need to do is make specific licenses for their games for Let's Plays that are issued automatically to everyone who buys a game. They need to include specific clauses that nullify the license in specific cases, like using hate speech in a Let's Play.
In the absence of such, devs and publishers are fully within their right to take down Let's Plays for any reason.
Creators don't want their products associated with things like overt bigotry and fringe white supremacy. Copyright law gives them some tools for protecting those interests. Full stop. Whether or not this is also a social censure makes no difference, because there's an obvious business and artistic concern at the fore.
Considering this response targeted abuse is a preposterous way to look at things. What that characterization in the quotes implies is that racists should recieve special protections that make the law not apply to them.
A DMCA takedown is literally a letter saying "Hi, I'm the copyright owner. Take this down." I can't imagine why that would be an improper tool for the goal of having PDP take down the copyrighted content.
People act like they unleashed Thanos in order to take down the video and they didnt need to do all that
Gormenghast
Member
Yes. The difference is that Nike has a contract with Ronaldo and use directly his image. So they are explicitly associated with him.
So it makes sense when you are explicitly associated with someone, to then dissociate. But this explicit association doesn't exist between Firewatch and Pewdiepie, so an explicit dissociation can't be motivated by a preexisting association that was never there.
You want to dissociate to make a stand.
Gotdatmoney
Member
If people think it's a slippery slope then let it go to court. It's not really slippery. We all know lets plays are not protected. All they are doing is saying this dude is a piece of shit and we're out. If you wanna contest that the law is unfair I am fine with that. But if this is the straw you literally can't handle then lol tuff.
BronsonLee
Member
You can give streaming rights
You can also take them away
EZPZ
You can also take them away
EZPZ
Rumblebones
Banned
Companies have always known this. I doubt they'll start abusing it now, especially considering the fact streams make them money. Like with Adpocalypse however, I have no problem with them flagging assholes. They key is making sure they don't abuse it, though that's been an issue as old as streams.
Zomba13
Member
This is how I feel. I also believe that Let's Plays and streaming is a transformative work, where you aren't going to any streamer/LPer to see the game, you're going to the streamer/LPer you like who plays games and makes banter you like. Like I'd happily watch the Super Best Friends play next to anything because I like how they interact with games and each other but I'd avoid Pewdiepie because at best he just doesn't care about anything he says or does and at worst he's a massive racist and anti-semite who has a massive audience, plus he isn't funny or entertaining to me so I wouldn't watch him play a game I could watch people I actually enjoy play the game.
In this case though, I think he should be allowed to keep his LP up. I mean, at least in the way I don't think Campo Santo should be able to take it down. If Youtube want to kick Pewdiepie off YT because he's a massive shit and breaking ToS by being racist or anti-semetic in videos then I'm all for it. Same if he got banned in PUBG for streaming it while using racist language. But I'm not a fan of devs being able to take down their content because they are bad people because then what is to stop any other dev from just taking down any video because they don't like the person.
And yeah, Pewdiepie (and other LPers/streamers) didn't make the game so shouldn't profit off the game, but they did make the video. The game is like an instrument that they play. Some do it badly and basically just play the game start to finish with next to no insight or talking and some edit it down to the "best" bits, some have a friend along they chat with about the game or other things and do more with their video than just stream a game.
At the end of the day though, I guess Campo Santo do have a right to remove the videos if they want, I mean they do own the images and assets and product used in the thing but knowing Youtube and the world right now, they will take the video down, Pewdiepie will contest, they will go to court and Campo Santo will win and then devs and pubs will have the right to shut down any LP or review that uses footage of their game, even more power because they can basically do that for 2 weeks anyway with Youtube but maybe they'll be able to just get them off permanently without the uploader being able to contest..