Juke Joint Jezebel
Member
My uncle said you dont know what youre talking about so it really is
His uncle works for nintendo, didn't you know?
My uncle said you dont know what youre talking about so it really is
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Plus the devs didn't want someone like Pewdiepie to make money from Let's Plays for their games anymore
That is only the case if the channel files a counter-claim. If they don't, the video is just gone.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.
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.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.
Didn't H3H3 just win a case against that dumb parkour guy who sued them for using footage of his videos?
Not even sure why this is a debate. PewDiePie is using their intellectual property to make content, which he then generates revenue from.
They don't want their property affiliated with the content he makes.
Case closed.
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.
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.
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.
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."
And you think that elaborate explanation sounds more plausible than:
"I have this tool to hurt a racist, I will use it."
?
What are you arguing exactly? They gave their reasons for doing this, among which is:And you think that elaborate explanation sounds more plausible than:
"I have this tool to hurt a racist, I will use it."
?
"I have this tool to hurt a racist, I will use it."
?
So the copyright owners of songs who didnt want their songs to be played at Trump rallies were in the wrong?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And you think that elaborate explanation sounds more plausible than:
"I have this tool to hurt a racist, I will use it."
?
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.
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 purchasedYou 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..
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.
If I search for "Let's Play Firewatch" the first results are all older then a year. So yes, there is proximity there.I agree with that: trying to establish a norm.
But it's different from what I commented originally: "we don't 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.
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.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.
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.Not even sure why this is a debate. PewDiePie is using their intellectual property to make content, which he then generates revenue from.
They don't want their property affiliated with the content he makes.
Case closed.
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.
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, it was about taking a stand.
Thats what copyright owners who distance themselves after someone said something racist do too, so whats so bad about it?
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.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.
And you think that elaborate explanation sounds more plausible than:
"I have this tool to hurt a racist, I will use it."
?
Nothing. The other topic of this thread is that the DMCA might be an improper tool for that goal.
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.
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.
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.