Support NeoGAF

[FunkyMunkey]

it's simple, you are free to utilze their content to stream and make money off of it unless you are using hate speech and become someone they don't want associated with their brand or ip.

if i were to play a certain band's song at my press conferences, they may be cool with it even while i profit from the conferences. but if i started channeling hate speech that band is within their rights to ask that i don't play it or profit from it while doing so. that doesn't suddenly mean no one else can have a conference playing that song

i need to read the rest of the thread but anyone arguing "slippery slope" in here is going to hit with a wet sock

 

[mas8705]

My only concern for this is that fine line that caused people to take up arms against Nintendo back when they were doing the exact same thing (give or take a couple of differences). Mind you in this case, I can get if you have people taking your content and using it for hate speech or anything that has nothing to do with the game itself.

It is a high wire act of issues right now and things may only get worse if this spiral continues.

 

[Oxymoron]

So if someone makes an app or software using a legally purchased commercial license of Java or C# or any other programming language etc. and make money by selling that app/software, should Oracle or Microsoft etc. have the right to take down that app/software because they do not like the way the app creator behaves?

Programming languages aren't copyrightable, so no, Oracle or Microsoft wouldn't and don't have that right.

Specific tools and engines are, however, copyrightable, and when you use them to create projects, you agree to terms. If you use Unreal Engine, for example, you have to give Epic royalties. A "legally purchased commercial license" is never a blank cheque to do whatever you want with the product, unless the terms explicitly say that you have a blank cheque.

 

[NobleXenon]

Common sense says no company would want their IP associated with racism or racists. It shouldn't need to be written that "hey, while streaming our content, don't be a racist, bigot, homophobe, etc" unless the game is made by a white supremacist, nazi, or homophobe. Then, it's probably okay cause the devs are POS too.

Pretty much.

I know a lot of people make fun of those 200+ page 8-point font Terms of Service/Use and say why is it even necessary. Well, if content creators don't want their work being remade into racist shit isn't implicit enough, get ready for 1000+ page Terms of Use and hyper-strict guidelines. They brought this on themselves.

 

[FyreWulff]

Redistributing the assets 1:1 would be uploading ripped models or music to a file hosting site, they don't exist as is as part of the distributed product to consumers. For example, the Picasso estate still owns the copyright on all his paintings, but me uploading a video to Youtube of someone dancing through a museum of Picasso paintings wouldn't really be "redistributing" them.

If the material worth of the video was to show the Picasso paintings, then it would actually be copyright infringement. Go take an image of something copyrighted and see how you fare in front of a judge with the "picture of a picture" excuse. Dancing in front of a Picasso is not transformative, is not a review or critique, is not educational, and isn't parody (to be a parody, it'd have to be a parody painting, like all the joke Last Supper paintings.).

If you were dancing around in public and incidentally got a Picasso in the picture that was being displayed publically, then no it wouldn't be copyright infringement.

You don't need to distribute the original assets that were used to make the work to be in infringement. This would be like saying burning a movie onto a DVD-R is fine because you aren't distributing it's storyboards, or in the case of an animated movies, you're not distributing the original line art or Pixar's/Dreamworks' animation files. Or music piracy isn't copyright infringement because they're not distributing the sheet music.

The music still plays as music, by the way, so you are in fact redistribution the music, because you are copying it and then distributing it just via the nature of capturing it in the first place. You haven't transformed or done anything to it, it's being replicated 1:1.

So if someone makes an app or software using a legally purchased commercial license of Java or C# or any other programming language etc. and make money by selling that app/software, should Oracle or Microsoft etc. have the right to take down that app/software because they do not like the way the app creator behaves?

It's already been well established legally that creators of compilers and languages do not own everything their compiler emits or is written in the language.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

The depth to which people go to protect the rights of Nazi's, racists, and outright murderers (in the case of police brutality that ends in death, especially) is extremely disturbing.

Who gives a fuck what happens to these people?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

The amount of this is a slippery slope is hilarious. Developer doesnt want their game associated with streamers who think yelling racial slurs is cool. Oh noes, what if they go way further!!!! I mean come on. If that bridge wasnt reached before what makes you think not being associated with racism is where they are going to turn into monsters?

 

[see5harp]

I'm not sure. This sets a dangerous precedent with the medium.

 

[benicillin]

I'm not sure. This sets a dangerous precedent with the medium.

You know what set a much worse precedent? YouTube and Twitch sitting on their ass and not doing anything about the growing pockets of racism and sexism on their platforms.

 

[LegendofLex]

I'm not sure. This sets a dangerous precedent with the medium.

That precedent being... what?

That a performance of a work doesn't count as fair use?

That creators can object to unlicensed performances of their work?

That they can do so arbitrarily on a case-by-case basis?

All of this is already true today. We just haven't had any legal precedent establishing how those ideas apply to performances of video games streamed over the Internet.

 

[NewDust]

The depth to which people go to protect the rights of Nazi's, racists, and outright murderers (in the case of police brutality that ends in death, especially) is extremely disturbing.

Who gives a fuck what happens to these people?

I don't think most people (in this thread at least) are defending PDP over this. Instead they have valid concerns over what this might mean if situations like these ever get in front of a court.

 

[Oxymoron]

That precedent being... what?

That a performance of a work doesn't count as fair use?

That creators can object to unlicensed performances of their work?

That they can do so arbitrarily on a case-by-case basis?

All of this is already true today. We just haven't had any legal precedent establishing how those ideas apply to performances of video games streamed over the Internet.

Well, actions aren't just governed by laws, they're also governed by norms. You can surely understand why a dev taking an action that devs haven't in the past re: the use of DMCA to target specific videos/streamers could herald a shift in norms and expectations from streamers going forward, even if the law itself remains the same.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

I don't think most people (in this thread at least) are defending PDP over this. Instead they have valid concerns over what this might mean if situations like these ever get in front of a court.

Nah. This is the same argument you get whenever someone wants to come down hard on one of society's lower dregs. "Today, Nazis. Tomorrow, you!"

Their concerns aren't valid. They want to take down older videos of his as a way to demonstrate that this isn't something that's ok and that they won't tolerate in the future. If more devs did shit like this, we'd be taking one huge step forward in making gaming a safer space for minorities/women.

But instead it's "think of the Let's Plays!"

 

[LegendofLex]

Well, actions aren't just governed by laws, they're also governed by norms. You can surely understand why a dev taking an action that devs haven't in the past re: the use of DMCA to target specific videos/streamers could herald a shift in norms and expectations from streamers going forward, even if the law itself remains the same.

This is a norm I'm okay with, because I've never thought it's a wise idea to base your livelihood on unlicensed performances of other people's work anyway. I'm not at all concerned by the idea that specific performers would be barred from using the work; I'm fine with artists doing so in other contexts, like playing songs at political rallies without the artist's consent.

There's nothing here that I find objectionable, even if it were to be used against me/people whose views I agree with.

I'm fine with sticking up for a consistent set of norms, but we're not talking about something like a harassment campaign where harassment itself is wrong for reasons other than the kind of person it's targeting, and when it already has been used to terrible effect to silence marginalized voices. We're talking about a copyright issue where the owner objects to an unlicensed use of their work that isn't currently (and IMO shouldn't be) protected under fair use.

I don't see why that shouldn't be okay for a developer objecting to the use of a racial slur in a video of their game; I don't see why it shouldn't be okay for a developer objecting to something that offends a right-wing persuasion they might be affiliated with, either. And I certainly don't see how it constitutes harm to anyone, since they're obviously still free to say whatever the hell they want - they're just not authorized to stream themselves playing through the developer's video game, which was never really their right to begin with.

 

[Temeculan3000]

it's simple, you are free to utilze their content to stream and make money off of it unless you are using hate speech and become someone they don't want associated with their brand or ip.

if i were to play a certain band's song at my press conferences, they may be cool with it even while i profit from the conferences. but if i started channeling hate speech that band is within their rights to ask that i don't play it or profit from it while doing so. that doesn't suddenly mean no one else can have a conference playing that song

i need to read the rest of the thread but anyone arguing "slippery slope" in here is going to hit with a wet sock

First you can't just play some bands songs at a public event without attaining the rights to do so, and you don't get those rights from the band, but from the record company who actually holds the rights. The band asking someone to stop using their music is just for show, unless the record company actually agrees to pull the rights.

You can't just make up laws, unless you are saying this is how things "should" be.

Well, actions aren't just governed by laws, they're also governed by norms. You can surely understand why a dev taking an action that devs haven't in the past re: the use of DMCA to target specific videos/streamers could herald a shift in norms and expectations from streamers going forward, even if the law itself remains the same.

The only reason this works is because YouTube automatically removes videos that have a DMCA take-down request, regardless if the validity of the request. It is very likely requests like these would not hold up in court, if it actually went to court.

I should add that I in no way support PDP and don't really care if his videos get taken down, but this isn't exactly proper use of the DMCA.

 

[Marcel]

"Think of the LPers!" is such a laughable line of thought. Public flaps of racism and sexism are bad for business and if the content creators aren't going to even attempt to fix themselves the advertisers and IP holders will fix it for them by denying them revenue even more. If you were thinking of doing streaming for anything more than a hobby/cash on the side then you should probably rethink your decision.

 

[GamerJM]

Nah. This is the same argument you get whenever someone wants to come down hard on one of society's lower dregs. "Today, Nazis. Tomorrow, you!"

Their concerns aren't valid. They want to take down older videos of his as a way to demonstrate that this isn't something that's ok and that they won't tolerate in the future. If more devs did shit like this, we'd be taking one huge step forward in making gaming a safer space for minorities/women.

But instead it's "think of the Let's Plays!"

To clarify the things I was saying earlier in this topic, I'm fine with PewDiePie getting a DMCA if it means that his hate speech gets removed. I hope the DMCA goes through. I care more about eliminating toxicity in gaming's online presence than creators being able to maintain the ability to publicly post Let's Plays, and even if I didn't I don't actually think there's substantial evidence that this situation even harms the latter.

But in general, I think it should be the responsibility of YouTube/Twitch to clean that up, not the developers, and I think there's a somewhat valid argument for Let's Plays being fair use. The topic title makes this topic sound more like it's supposed to be about whether or not developers have a right to deny use of content in general, not a topic about the details of this specific situation.

 

[Goldenroad]

I'm not sure. This sets a dangerous precedent with the medium.

Your use of the word "dangerous" has me intrigued. Who exactly is put in the line of danger by these rules? Who's life or safety is at risk? I can see having racists being allowed any kind of public platform being a "dangerous" precedent, but i don't understand how denying them access to certain video games is putting anyone in any kind of danger.

 

[Temeculan3000]

Your use of the word "dangerous" has me intrigued. Who exactly is put in the line of danger by these rules? Who's life or safety is at risk? I can see having racists being allowed any kind of public platform being a "dangerous" precedent, but i don't understand how denying them access to certain video games is putting anyone in any kind of danger.

What we are talking about is making fraudulent copyright infringement claims in order to remove videos created by someone a developer doesn't like.

This is improper use of the DMCA. Now we can agree that PDP sucks and it's all great for his videos to get removed, but this isn't the way to do it.

If it becomes accepted that a developer has the right to remove any videos that feature their game (game reviews, lets plays, etc..) just because the reviewer or streamer does something they don't like, then you could have legitimate reviews getting their videos pulled if the developer or publisher doesn't like the review score they gave etc...

Unless there is a law in place specifically regarding hate speech, in which case its power would be limited. But with no law in place, allowing this just means allowing publishers to abuse takedown requests even more than they do now.

 

[commissar]

Your use of the word "dangerous" has me intrigued. Who exactly is put in the line of danger by these rules? Who's life or safety is at risk? I can see having racists being allowed any kind of public platform being a "dangerous" precedent, but i don't understand how denying them access to certain video games is putting anyone in any kind of danger.

You obviously know how the term is used in their statement. Isolating it for cherry-picking pedantry is making an argument in bad faith.

Come on now.

 

[Oriel]

This isn't complicated stuff. No one has the right to financially benefit off the backs of developers. YT is great and all but it's become a platform for the lazy to profit from other peoples' work.

 

[MYeager]

EULA typically contain restrictions of use, including the restriction the software in a revenue generating endeavor.

Even Mystery Science Theater 3000 had to pay for the rights to show the movies.

 

[Goldenroad]

You obviously know how the term is used in their statement. Isolating it for cherry-picking pedantry is making an argument in bad faith.

Come on now.

Using exaggerated language like "dangerous" to describe that precedent, is arguing in bad faith too imo. These are video games. Everyone will be just fine if more streamers get hit with DMCA takedowns. This is not a "both sides" issue.

 

[NewDust]

Using exaggerated language like "dangerous" to describe that precedent, is arguing in bad faith too imo. These are video games. Everyone will be just fine if more streamers get hit with DMCA takedowns. This is not a "both sides" issue.

Well it is dangerous to arbitrarily decide when law does and doesn't apply.

But let's just agree that we value streams/lp's differently, but despise racists equally.

 

[Oxymoron]

Well it is dangerous to arbitrarily decide when law does and doesn't apply.

But let's just agree that we value streams/lp's differently, but despise racists equally.

The law applies to every streamer. The Firewatch devs had decided to grant a license to every streamer, and now have decided to revoke that license for one streamer. There's no arbitrary deciding of whether or not the law applies: Campo Santo always retained the rights to revoke the license at any time for any reason, and have decided to exercise that right.

 

[Dragon_Rocks]

First I want to make it clear that I am not supporting PDP or any other racist/jerks out there. I am just trying to see the risks of letting developers block people from using their creation because they don't like how the gamer or user is behaving.

Remove the game and PDP has nothing because thats all the "content:" he creates.

But if he just starts the game and leaves it in the menu and doesn't play then that is not the content. The game doesn't play itself. The game alone is not enough to attract the audience. Its what the user is doing with the game which makes the content like how they are playing, what they are saying while playing etc. Its similar to how a person cannot just keep a skateboard down and take its video and call it content.

Programming languages aren't copyrightable, so no, Oracle or Microsoft wouldn't and don't have that right.

Specific tools and engines are, however, copyrightable, and when you use them to create projects, you agree to terms. If you use Unreal Engine, for example, you have to give Epic royalties. A "legally purchased commercial license" is never a blank cheque to do whatever you want with the product, unless the terms explicitly say that you have a blank cheque.

But then you sign a contract with them when you purchase and use their engine and then pay the money you owe them. If there was a similar contract with the gaming license then user/gamer should follow that as well. But is there one now? I think a game now is like a programming language which can be used in any way to create an output. Some can do excellent play through of the game and some can do silly/goofy stuff to make amusing videos. If someone counters by saying that no game no content then one say say that no programming language then no new software unless individuals decide to create their own languages or games etc.

 

[NewDust]

Welp, meant to edit

 

[NewDust]

The law applies to every streamer. The Firewatch devs had decided to grant a license to every streamer, and now have decided to revoke that license for one streamer. There's no arbitrary deciding of whether or not the law applies: Campo Santo always retained the rights to revoke the license at any time for any reason, and have decided to exercise that right.

1. There seems to be disagreement wether or not you can retroactively revoke a license, as in preventing past videos being broadcast, specifically after making a blanket statement that streaming and monetization (not sure if that extends to VOD) are allowed. In that way, it would be misuse of DMCA.
2. The bigger point being is if gameplay (accompanied by commentary) is transformative enough to fall under fair use or not. We'll probably never know since both content creators and devs/publishers seem fine with the status quo.

 

[LegendofLex]

1. There seems to be disagreement wether or not you can retroactively revoke a license, specifically after making a blanket statement that streaming and monetization (not sure if that extends to VOD) are allowed.

Unless PDP signed a contract indicating that this license is irrevocable, I'd imagine it's incredibly unlikely that it'd be considered such.

2. The bigger point being is if gameplay (accompanied by commentary) is transformative enough to fall under fair use or not. We'll probably never know since both content creators and devs/publishers seem fine with the status quo.

Chances are the answer is no, since public performances/derivatives of other works are required to be licensed even when they make changes to the source material.

 

[Oxymoron]

But then you sign a contract with them when you purchase and use their engine and then pay the money you owe them. If there was a similar contract with the gaming license then user/gamer should follow that as well. But is there one now? I think a game now is like a programming language which can be used in any way to create an output. Some can do excellent play through of the game and some can do silly/goofy stuff to make amusing videos. If someone counters by saying that no game no content then one say say that no programming language then no new software unless individuals decide to create their own languages or games etc.

There's no contract now, which means that the content owners haven't waived the rights to their content.

1. There seems to be disagreement wether or not you can retroactively revoke a license, specifically after making a blanket statement that streaming and monetization (not sure if that extends to VOD) are allowed.
2. The bigger point being is if gameplay (accompanied by commentary) is transformative enough to fall under fair use or not. We'll probably never know since both content creators and devs/publishers seem fine with the status quo.

Neither of those points are about "arbitrarily deciding when the law applies".

1. I think it's pretty clear that PDP had a license to stream Firewatch, and nobody's talking about retroactively revoking it or suing for past earnings. He just no longer (if you accept that LPs probably aren't fair use) has that license going forward, so he can't distribute the videos of his streaming Firewatch anymore. That's not retroactive, that's proactive.

2. If PDP believes that his videos are fair use, he certainly has an opportunity to argue that in court following this. As of right now, his Firewatch videos have been taken down following the DMCA takedown notice. He's got the resources to take this to court and clarify the status of LPs.

 

[Venom.]

* If a content creator publishes a video with a music track then Google software will detect it and direct any ad revenue to the song publisher, but the video can stay up.

* If a content creator publishes a video with copyrighted movie footage then Google software can detect it and remove the video. Additionally the YT channel will be at risk of closure.

* Vanaman has initiated the debate about who should profit from a Let's Play video on YouTube? In the future it may be that any Let's Play video on all the ad revenue goes to the game publisher. Or it may be that all game software by default is not allowed for use due to copyright reasons. Content creators will be allowed to use game footage in Let's Play videos - but only if they are approved by the publisher. The risk is that unsympathetic reviewers like Jimquisition will be rejected to avoid negative game coverage.

 

[atomsk]

Content creators will be allowed to use game footage in Let's Play videos - but only if they are approved by the publisher. The risk is that unsympathetic reviewers like Jimquisition will be rejected to avoid negative game coverage.

Gearbox would love this... all those positive Aliens: Colonial Marines videos.

Calling out shit games and shit devs is best for consumers.

 

[Goldenroad]

Gearbox would love this... all those positive Aliens: Colonial Marines videos.

Calling out shit games and shit devs is best for consumers.

They can't stop Jim from reviewing their games. Worst case scenario, they can stop him from using footage of their games in his reviews. I mean, god forbid, people actually have to go back to reading reviews...imagine the horror.

 

[Mael]

You can critic games without showing footage of the game, it's less effective but it's possible.
If this is where we're going because the alternative is normalization of racism, sexism and Nazi behavior. I'd say let's be prepared for the most creative folks who will go around this limitation.

The gravy train was going to stop once people fucked up enough, it's pretty funny that the biggest youtuber out there would be the one fucking this up for everyone.

Never made sense to have advertisers being linked to the worst behavior possible.
Like Gilette is going to like being just before a Nazi skit from PDP.

 

[Nanashrew]

Thing about the blanket statement allowing people to make money on playing games from Campo Santo. It's not a binding contract. It is a permission. And they can revoke it. I don't understand any discussion on "either everyone is allowed or no one is" because that is not how reality works.

The fact is, all these publishers are just giving permission allowing you to make money off their work and nothing more.

 

[Mael]

Thing about the blanket statement allowing people to make money on playing games from Campo Santo. It's not a binding contract. It is a permission. And they can revoke it. I don't understand any discussion on "either everyone is allowed or no one is" because that is not how reality works.

The fact is, all these publishers are just giving permission allowing you to make money off their work and nothing more.

Basically it's like these people on FB who post that long "disclaimer" post about how companies cannot use their content because this post says so or some shit.
If it's not a binding clear contract, no one gives a shit.
And even then if it's not challenged in court, don't expect it to mean anything at all.

 

[Audioserf]

I think the first tweet is unfair to children, honestly. There is a gigantic list of pejoratives that you could select from to describe that dipshit.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

The law applies to every streamer. The Firewatch devs had decided to grant a license to every streamer, and now have decided to revoke that license for one streamer. There's no arbitrary deciding of whether or not the law applies: Campo Santo always retained the rights to revoke the license at any time for any reason, and have decided to exercise that right.

People keep saying that Campo Santo granted a license, but that is not true. An actual license to use their content would be about 10 times longer and written in legalese. If you look at the Microsoft thing that was posted earlier this thread, that is what a license would actually look like.

No one had a license to do anything. However, Campo Santo decided to do what most major game publishers have been doing and turn a blind eye toward the copyright infringement coming from LPers. That's significant, because that leaves CS with the ability to stop ignoring instances of infringement if, say, they finally have enough of a streamer being a blatant racist shithead.

 

[Archanfel]

I don't agree with the precedent. Games need criticism without any protection from it whatsoever. However, platforms that host this sort of hate speach need to pay attention to it and eliminate the source. I really wish YouTube and Twitch along with other social media sites would (and maybe they do) include a no hate/harassment speach clause in their TOS that if you violate period then you get banned. Though pewds makes them money so I'm sure they'd just slap him on the wrist (if that).

 

[LegendofLex]

I don't agree with the precedent. Games need criticism without any protection from it whatsoever. However, platforms that host this sort of hate speach need to pay attention to it and eliminate the source. I really wish YouTube and Twitch along with other social media sites would (and maybe they do) include a no hate/harassment speach clause in their TOS that if you violate period then you get banned. Though pewds makes them money so I'm sure they'd just slap him on the wrist (if that).

A dude streaming himself playing video games for other people's amusement doesn't immediately qualify as criticism

 

[Heigic]

Thing about the blanket statement allowing people to make money on playing games from Campo Santo. It's not a binding contract. It is a permission. And they can revoke it. I don't understand any discussion on "either everyone is allowed or no one is" because that is not how reality works.

The fact is, all these publishers are just giving permission allowing you to make money off their work and nothing more.

I agree with this for the most part but does revoking permission apply only to future content made or also content that was made when he had permission? And I really don't think if you decide to revoke permission instantly filing a DMCA is the correct way to handle it.

 

[see5harp]

Your use of the word "dangerous" has me intrigued. Who exactly is put in the line of danger by these rules? Who's life or safety is at risk? I can see having racists being allowed any kind of public platform being a "dangerous" precedent, but i don't understand how denying them access to certain video games is putting anyone in any kind of danger.

Poor word choice. I just mean possibly bad.

 

[Freshmaker]

You need to take video games less seriously...

Nintendo is proof.

 

[Nanashrew]

I agree with this for the most part but does revoking permission apply only to future content made or also content that was made when he had permission? And I really don't think if you decide to revoke permission instantly filing a DMCA is the correct way to handle it.

Well since there's no binding contract they can be retroactive. There's really no correct way of handling it as they can choose to handle in a extreme way if they feel it's deserving of it, or just sending a C&D or ask over Twitter like Simogo has done https://twitter.com/simogo/status/907218036243009536

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Chances are the answer is no, since public performances/derivatives of other works are required to be licensed even when they make changes to the source material.

Right. You can't legally perform a play publicly without permission from the play's owner (which is usually obtained by paying a fee). Everyone involved in the production & performance of that play has a "transformative" effect on the original material, but it's not considered enough to protect it in a Fair Use capacity. There's no reason to think that somebody playing a videogame while talking would be viewed as any different.

And again, this only applies to LPs. An actual review could be protected by Fair Use (with the caveat that the publisher could still challenge that protection, in cases like this where they feel that they can make a good case that any association with the reviewer in question would have a negative effect regardless of the content of the review). But an LP doesn't fall under Fair Use and the fact that nobody's bothered to enforce this just means that companies don't feel it's a battle worth fighting yet. It's a battle that a publisher with any sort of legal department could easily win.

 

[atomsk]

Well since there's no binding contract they can be retroactive. There's really no correct way of handling it as they can choose to handle in a extreme way if they feel it's deserving of it, or just sending a C&D or ask over Twitter like Simogo has done https://twitter.com/simogo/status/907218036243009536

Kudos to Simogo

Cease and Desist is great, hope more companies follow suit

Using Content ID to block the video in all countries is also a feasible option. (had this happen by accident on a WWE game with actual WWE footage in the video)

DMCA strikes are the nuclear option.

 

[LegitMcfalls]

I feel bad for the small to medium youtubers trying to get their videos monetized again. Advertisers are going to look at gaming channels on youtube as pure filth and not want anything to do with it.

 

[Yukinari]

I feel bad for the small to medium youtubers trying to get their videos monetized again. Advertisers are going to look at gaming channels on youtube as pure filth and not want anything to do with it.

This really is the worst part cause it will affect my favorite youtubers who have been doing this stuff longer than pewdiepie. Proper LP's as far as im concerned are a lost art.

 

[MadMod]

I don't like what PDP did, or make videos on YT. But this is a precedent that shouldn't be set. Developers shouldn't be allowed to choose who gets to play their games and upload videos on YT. Imagine the power of a developer that hates women for example, therefore he decides to DMCA every female on YT off of his game? Its just a bit too much power. If its only this one case, then sure. But if someone says "they did it, why can't we?" Then we have a problem. I just don't want the system to be abused, its already abused enough as is.

 

[Zolo]

I don't like what PDP did, or make videos on YT. But this is a precedent that shouldn't be set. Developers shouldn't be allowed to choose who gets to play their games and upload videos on YT. Imagine the power of a developer that hates women for example, therefore he decides to DMCA every female on YT off of his game? Its just a bit too much power. If its only this one case, then sure. But if someone says "they did it, why can't we?" Then we have a problem.

If a developer does that, they shouldn't be supported anyway.