Support NeoGAF

[KonradLaw]

Consent can be withdrawn? I mean, that's a fairly fundamental and basic principle.

yes, but it takes effect only from the moment of withdraval. It shouldn't cover the content created before it. So in effect they should have demonitized those videos, not try to remove them.

Just like if you're creating say...a novel based on specific IP license, that license ending should just stop you from making new copies or even making money of the copies already produced, but not sold. It shouldn't mean the IP owner has right to go around and burn every copy in existence.

 

[Machina]

Jim Sterling's next video is pretty much set in stone then

 

[Spman2099]

I think their hearts are in the right place, but I don't think they have the right to do this. I think they are doing way more harm than good.

 

[Nanashrew]

While I sympathise with exercising the right to not associate themselves with a racist asshole , that's not what the DMCA is for, it makes the developers no different than digital homicide and it should be on the platforms themselves like YouTube and Twitch to bring the hammer down if the personality isn't "ad friendly".

So basically no consequence as YouTube has done nothing at all against PDP outside of cancelling his Youtube Red show. He still gets money and does what he wants.

EDIT: I'm also not sure how this equates to Digital Homicide and their attack on Jim Sterling in attempts to silence him and his criticisms of them, and Campo Santo wanting to dissociate with a racist scumbag.

 

[Regiruler]

I think developers/publishers should have authority over content with their game in it in regards to monetization, at least proportional to how much of the video is within the game, especially if they gave the video creator a copy.

So in this case I think they're perfectly fine.

I will admit though that my view of extended game media is that of something that stems entirely from wealth of the priveledge and provides no tangible benefit other than marketing. Creative youtubing is incredibly hollow.

 

[Stead Fast]

Jim Sterling's next video is pretty much set in stone then

Does he have time enough for it today? Or perhaps an emergency one tomorrow.

 

[HazySaiyan]

Does he have time enough for it today? Or perhaps an emergency one tomorrow.

He might do a quick video like he did with Destiny that's not a Jimquisition

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

I think yes - a video game is an intellectual property comprising many of the same facets as a film or television show. Let's Players are basically reproducing vast tracts of those intellectual properties - almost entirely unaltered - in video format as a foundational component of thier own creative output.

If I were using a licenced piece of music in one of my own youtube videos or lengthy segments of a film, no one would think that it was fair for me to benefit from that without seeking express permission from the creators.

As almost no Let's Players are getting permission they are essentially existing by the clemency of publishers. If those publishers withdraw that consent because they're not happy for someone to continue making revenue from (even if they benefit from the exposure on a large channel), they're well within their rights.

 

[michaelius]

This is literally a slippery slope argument. A bad one at that - we have decades and decades of evidence from other media forms that companies will get very pissed off at bad reviews, but they have absolutely no ability to stop such reviews (look at the rotten tomato furor last week!). Yet companies have had the power to stop their works being used by racists / Nazis / political causes they don't agree with for decades.

Companies control who get's review copies and they control how early those are given. Which means they have means to hit hard reviewer they don't like by providing everyone else with copies and then forcing him to wait until release day which means he loses majority of views from day one.

AMD is using that tactic regularly to strike back against reviewers who show negative sides of their products.

 

[Wok]

I don't get the part where Campo Santo feels the need to step up and DMCA a video which is long dead (don't tell me there are people watching Firewatch Let's Play these days...).

If someone has to step up, it is the dev of PUBG. Because this is the game being streamed these days, and the one involved in the streamer's scandal.

 

[Maledict]

Companies control who get's review copies and they control how early those are given. Which means they have means to hit hard reviewer they don't like by providing everyone else with copies and then forcing him to wait until release day which means he loses majority of views from day one.

AMD is using that tactic regularly to strike back against reviewers who show negative sides of their products.

And film companies can not hold preview events for reviewers as well. Doesn't actually work out for them emerald however - a shit film is a shit film, and word of mouth plus the fact they didn't give advance showings puts people off.

But gamers are far less discerning than film goers. We're quite happy to die on any number of stupid hills to defend a company that makes a game we like, and the notion of not buying a game because you don't agree with what a company is doing is utterly foreign to us (look at Jim S, whose still buying Shadows of War despite everything he's said about it). Gamers really aren't that great tbh.

 

[Mista Koo]

Many have taken this as an act of racism

Umm...

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Content creators/IP owners should have the right to prevent their IP being associated with people with bigoted/racists ideologies.

I don't think there's anything to fear about this level of content/IP control being exercised, in creating a bad precedent.

You have to understand that YouTuber "fair use" of gaming media in and of itself is pretty lenient. None of them actually have any inherent right or entitlement to using or profiting off someone else's owned content/IP.

The fact that game publishers, who have a vested commercial interest in protecting their IP and sales, currently allow things like full game walk-through streaming in the form of "let's plays", is a testament to the fact that these organisations value the publicity and visibility afforded to their games/IP by these YouTubers, over any potential lost sales that might eventuate from people watching the videos and deciding not to buy the games.

In which case, I hardly see how content/IP owners preventing racists from using their content as changing the parameters of that value assessment that publishers make.

 

[The Bookerman]

This debate is exactly the same as Cloudflare denying Daily stormer a DNS entry.

 

[benicillin]

Seems like it's going to be a very rude awakening for a lot of people when the bottom falls out of the LP industry.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Seems like it's going to be a very rude awakening for a lot of people when the bottom falls out of the LP industry.

Yep. And very few of them will blame pdp's fuckups for causing it.

 

[TatteredHat]

So you believe that content creators have no control over their works being used to promote morally appalling things? You don't think the Rolling Stones should have been able to stop Trump using their song at campaign rallies?

In an ideal world they should. My problem is that it seems unlikely that there will be a distinction between "racist youtuber playing someone's game" and "innocent youtuber getting fucked over by a big publisher" if this kinda thing does end up in court under a Fair Use case, for instance.

I don't doubt that Firewatch Dev's heart is in the right place but the only reason they had to do that is because Google and Twitch are both failing to properly police their platforms when it comes to these shithead youtubers. The onus to act should be on them.

 

[_Ryo_]

I think criticizing a game with extremely colorful language and being a racist piece of shit are two very different things.

Developers should not have the right to issue DMCA request anyone who is offering feedback on their games either positive or negative, because that would go against the first admendment and fair use, they do however have an IP to protect, fortunately for critics, when developers do bully them it has an effect of negatively impacting their IP so there really isnt any positive motives to do so.

When a streamer associates their game with hate filled racist shit, it also negatively impacts their IP, which they have the right to protect.

 

[spineduke]

That's... not a slippery slope? It's using the tools at hand to stop something that shouldn't be happening.

Great if the law catches up, but right now if you're a content creator of course you have the right to stop racists and Nazis using your content to make money. Saying otherwise implies that content creators have no rights, and the fact they can suffer substantial damages by being associated with such people is less important that anyone anywhere being able to stream a let's play of their work no matter what circumstances or whatever they say?

It is a slippery slope when you justify its use by lack of alternatives. DMCA is a copyright tool, not a tool to moderate the messaging of your product. We should be wary of giving overbroad scope to such tools especially when cases of DMCA abuse have been documented many times. I agree racism is a problem that needs attending to, but I'm not so quick to rush to a solution - bad legislation is often done impulsively while emotions are riding high.

I don't doubt that Firewatch Dev's heart is in the right place but the only reason they had to do that is because Google and Twitch are both failing to properly police their platforms when it comes to these shithead youtubers. The onus to act should be on them.

Agreed. a lot of this is starting to snowball because of Googles unwillingness to take action. Let the platform holders moderate racism and other shitty behaviors, not the original IP holders.

 

[Maledict]

It is a slippery slope when you justify its use by lack of alternatives. DMCA is a copyright tool, not a tool to moderate the messaging of your product. We should be wary of giving overbroad scope to such tools especially when cases of DMCA abuse have been documented many times. I agree racism is a problem that needs attending to, but I'm not so quick to rush to a solution - bad legislation is often done impulsively while emotions are riding high.

I think the rights of the content creator, and their right to not be damaged by Nazis using their products, are more important than people making cash from let's plays, an entirely disposable form of entertainment. Ultimately that's what we're talking about. I think addressing racism is more important than someone's right to make a let's play.

 

[spineduke]

I think the rights of the content creator, and their right to not be damaged by Nazis using their products, are more important than people making cash from let's plays, an entirely disposable form of entertainment. Ultimately that's what we're talking about. I think addressing racism is more important than someone's right to make a let's play.

Well, I don't agree with using the DMCA to do it. I think that's more important that knee jerk reactions to moderate the platform.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

Content creators have no control of how their content is consumed by the Zeitgeist. Once it is consumed by a person, that person will develop their own feelings an the content created.

In this case the developer was angry a YouTuber who had played their game was racist. They are not arguing that his content was transfromative, they are upset that their game is associated with Pew and that he has made money off of this.

This is purely symbolic gesture on the developer part. They can claim the videos, but they are doing it by abusing a broken copy right system. Their symbolic gesture won't mean squat in 30 days when the appeal goes through.

They have very right to voice their displeasure, but abusing an already broken system was not the right way to do it and if Pew wanted to, I could imagine he would win if this went to court. This case going to court would harm both sides.

What should have happened is PUBG should have banned him for being toxic. That would have hurt him a lot more than this. He broke their community guide lines and was banned from playing a very popular game.

As to the debate on creators intent and controls, as opposed to what fair use covers, I have made myself clear in earlier posts. I lean towards the content creators having the right to make any content as long as it is transofrmative. I would rather the current YouTube system was like this, as opposed to the easily abused system we currently have. I would also like the law to be changed in regards to Copyright, Fair Use, Transformative Work and the Internet. The current system is far too grey and exploitable by both sides.

EDIT:

As to slippery slope. This isn't one, but you are mad if you don't think companies don't have it out for Youtube and wish for a day they could claim anything. You want proof? Look at the Midnight Reviews from Cinema Snob. No footage of the movie what so ever and they still get claimed by studios.

 

[omgwtfbentime]

I think there are games that work better for streaming than others. Multiplayer stuff lends itself well because it's almost always a relatively different experience, you'd be stupid as a developer/publisher of a multiplayer game to not let streaming go. For a linear narrative exploration game like Firewatch? I think most streamers (at least your big ones) would use that solely as a way to get more/new viewers on Twitch. There's a decent size of people who consider watching someone else playing those games is just as rewarding as playing them. Should movie studios let people upload movies in their entirety with their commentary in the background, and make thousands of dollars on it? Probably not.

Yet there's always exceptions. Things like Giant Bomb quicklooks always look at each game for what it is and decide how to appropriately stream that content, if a game is 2-3 hours long, they'll stream 10-15 minutes of it. And I think that may, to a degree, come with their years of experience in the industry and understanding maybe it's not in your best interest, as someone who profits off of what the video game industry produces, to sound off about how some company DMCAd your video and therefore all their fans should be against said company.

But yeah, as I said, it's a slippery slope. I think It's streaming has become this big of an industry, it's usually harmless, but I think game studios have a case for not wanting the entirety of their game streamed. I think it might be smart if publishers started issuing streaming guidelines for monetization when games come out, give lets players the ability to stream and profit off of a select portion of their game with full monetization.

 

[CloudWolf]

So you believe that content creators have no control over their works being used to promote morally appalling things? You don't think the Rolling Stones should have been able to stop Trump using their song at campaign rallies?

That's different though. PewDiePie wasn't using Firewatch to promote morally appaling things. Is PewDiePie a shady person? Yes, but the Firewatch Let's Play and his statements are two seperated situations. He wasn't playing Firewatch when he said it and in he (probably) didn't use his Firewatch playthroughs to go on big rants about race relations. Sure, legally Campo Santo currently has the right to block PewDiePie's videos and the system on YouTube allows for it, but even though this has a better validation, this is not much different than other (shadier) devs in the past abusing the copyright system on YouTube to block videos critisizing their games.

Honestly though, it's pretty debatable if Campo Santo even should have full rights to say what happens with PewDiePie's content with their game in it. I see people here stating 'well, it's content creator vs. Let's Player', but that's not true. YouTube video creators à la PewDiePie (but also TotalBiscuit, Jim Sterling, etc.) that use other games' content to make their own videos are content creators of their own, in a sense they're not much different than remix artists like Girl Talk. Every single one of those creators should have some say about what happens with their video. That's why people hate the copyright system of YouTube, it gives full power to the rights holder of the original content while giving none to the content creator that used that content to create something new. Campo Santo has explicitely given permission to streamers/let's players to make money by using their game content, they can't just take that back because one guy who did has a bad moral code.

 

[Beefy]

People need to understand LP do not fall under fair use, also LP are basically long as advertisements. If a company doesn't like a person advertising their game due to that person being a racist etc, I see no problem.

 

[Maledict]

The let's play creators and other content creators literally don't exist without using someone else's content. They are in no way equivalent.

 

[Zaph]

Seeing shitty youtubers realising they might not have a protected "right" to make a living off of other people's IP (as it's an entirely untested legal grey area where all parties have worked to avoid the courtroom), is the best thing to come out of this.

It's hilarious how these guys are so desperate to be seen as legitimate professionals, but as soon as any business reality hits them, they resort to "slippery slope" bullshit.

 

[Beefy]

That's different though. PewDiePie wasn't using Firewatch to promote morally appaling things. Is PewDiePie a shady person? Yes, but the Firewatch Let's Play and his statements are two seperated situations. He wasn't playing Firewatch when he said it and in he (probably) didn't use his Firewatch playthroughs to go on big rants about race relations. Sure, legally Campo Santo currently has the right to block PewDiePie's videos and the system on YouTube allows for it, but even though this has a better validation, this is not much different than other (shadier) devs in the past abusing the copyright system on YouTube to block videos critisizing their games.

Honestly though, it's pretty debatable if Campo Santo even should have full rights to say what happens with PewDiePie's content with their game in it. I see people here stating 'well, it's content creator vs. Let's Player', but that's not true. YouTube video creators à la PewDiePie (but also TotalBiscuit, Jim Sterling, etc.) that use other games' content to make their own videos are content creators of their own, in a sense they're not much different than remix artists like Girl Talk. Every single one of those creators should have some say about what happens with their video. That's why people hate the copyright system of YouTube, it gives full power to the rights holder of the original content while giving none to the content creator that used that content to create something new. Campo Santo has explicitely given permission to streamers/let's players to make money by using their game content, they can't just take that back because one guy who did has a bad moral code.

Umm, every one of PDP's videos have him in it. So even though he isn't spewing hate in every video, he still is the main focus of his videos. You can not try to say just because he isn't saying racist shit it is different.

 

[CloudWolf]

Umm, every one of PDP's videos have him in it. So even though he isn't spewing hate in every video, he still is the main focus of his videos. You can not try to say just because he isn't saying racist shit it is different.

That's something different than the comparison I was replying to though. I completely agree that a company should have the right to not want to be associated to racists/fascists/etc., but it's different than a band stating that a political candidate cannot use their songs for a rally. In those cases the song is literally use to strengthen their point, the song becomes part of that politician's run and identity. No one is going to associate Firewatch with PewDiePie or his societal views.

My stance on this subject is quite simple. Campo Santo not wanting to have further associations with PDP is great and they should forbid him from covering their future titles, but they cannot claim copyright (essentially saying someone is using their content illegally) when in the past they have given explicit support and permission to the very same videos. Just like an artist who gives permission to a sample in a certain song can't simply say 'Oh wait, let's revert that and now you can't sell your song anymore' a year or two after an artist releases the song.

Spoiler

And yes, I know similar things have kind of happened in the past, but those have always been bullshit as well.

 

[Goldenroad]

Simply put, if I'm asked to take a side between Youtubers and video game developers, I will always side with the video game developers since they are the only ones out of those two groups that are making things I am interested in.

 

[Majukun]

no,they don't have such right..actually they shouldn't have the right at all,but youtube usually sides with them more than with the creators..and being that a ptrrivate company that owns a private website,such things as "rights" don't matter

 

[Armaros]

no,they don't have such right..actually they shouldn't have the right at all,but youtube usually sides with them more than with the creators..and being that a ptrrivate company that owns a private website,such things as "rights" don't matter

Developers shouldnt have copyright rights to their own created work?

 

[N3DS]

Hasn't Nintendo already been doing this for a while? They have sort of a white list of youtubers who can use their game footage. And I remember Angry Joe was very upset about it.

If white list is allowed then I don't see why blacklist is not, which is essentially the Firewatch guy is doing.

 

[FyreWulff]

I forsee a lot of devs starting to use Microsoft's Game Content Usage rules as boilerplate, because most of them would assume people would be decent, but a company that always make sure to cover all it's bases is well ahead of them:

http://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules

"Here are the magic words from our lawyers: on the condition that you follow the rules below ("Rules"), Microsoft grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-sublicenseable, non-transferable, revocable, limited license for you to use and display Game Content and to create derivative works based upon Game Content, strictly for your personal, noncommercial (except as specifically provided below) use. This license is limited and clarified by the specific conditions and restrictions below, so please read them. We can revoke this limited-use license at any time and for any reason without liability to you (and if we think you are abusing this license or its intent, you may hear from us). We reserve the right to update this license and the Rules from time to time."

"You can't use Game Content to create an Item that is pornographic, lewd, obscene, vulgar, discriminatory (on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), illegal, hate speech, promoting violence, drug use or any illegal activity, promoting crimes against humanity, genocide or torture, or is otherwise objectionable. Whether an Item is "objectionable" is up to us, but you can expect us to be concerned if a significant number of people in the game's community or the public at large report the content as offensive. If you see an Item or content that you consider objectionable, we recommend that you first report it to the online service where it is hosted, as it may violate that service's policy too. But you can also report it to us here and we'll see what we can do."

 

[Majukun]

Developers shouldnt have copyright rights to their own created work?

To their work? yes
To the transformative work that someone else made with what they made? no

 

[Blam]

Personally his personal opinion shouldn't have been anywhere near his job at all.

This was a stupid decision on his part.

https://twitter.com/vanaman/status/906984060215427072

This tweet especially made no sense. If he doesn't want people playing the game how they see fit why not just make a movie? Why bother releasing anything at all if you're going to be trying to ruin someone else because of something they said that had nothing related to your game at all.

Seriously this is just a poly to see if they could get more sales, but it seems like it just entirely backfired on them instead. They can't just run back on a statement they said about being able to stream, and monetize their games. Then just do this? This is beyond hypocritical.

Why didn't they do this for Dunkey then? Doesn't everyone remember that? Or is this happening because he's more popular and there's a chance to drive traffic. Regardless who it is, and what they've done. No developer should put their personal opinion into their job or it backfires nearly all the time. Yooka-Laylee did it and that backfired, so did that other person that sued over their music.

edit: I'm not saying that racism is wrong is his own personal opinion, yes it's wrong in everyway. I'm saying he should keep this seperate from his job.

 

[dead souls]

To their work? yes
To the transformative work that someone else made with what they made? no

Are let's play videos really transformative? I'd argue the ones that show an entire game from start to finish clearly aren't.

 

[Yaska]

To their work? yes
To the transformative work that someone else made with what they made? no

If the content is featured prominently in the "new" work, the developers still have right to their work and are able to deny the "publication" of the new derivative work. Fair Use is very limited right and it's pretty much only prevalent in the United States.

The right owner has and will always have a right to deny the usage of their intellectual property everywhere else. Especially if it's used for profit. But in this case the developer has given a public consent to monetising their content and permission to create new works out of it, they are out of luck as such.

 

[RoninChaos]

I think the bigger thing at play here is eventually Youtube will be regulated. That regulation is going to be dealt with the same way video game violence was dealt with in the 90s. Thanks for Mortal Kombat and Night Trap, you had people clutching their proverbial pearls and claiming videogames were inciting violence and corrupting the youth. Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, Herb Kohl, and many others went after the games industry hard. Thankfully the video games industry regulated itself but that didn't stop every two bit asshole from showing up after the fact to try and create scandals, ala Jack Thompson. We're finally past the government is looking at games as a problem, but now we're living in a completely polarized time where you can tailor what kind of information you want to get via things like social media and youtube. Especially with hate groups using the internet to carry out their message I think it's very likely this will be the next thing Congress goes after.

I think the regulation, if it happens, will be even more harsh because Youtube is technically a broadcast service/network. And this means a lot of people who make their money on Youtube are going to have to really watch what they say and do. Throwing out the N word, trying to shock people, this is Howard Stern level, shock jock shit. From the 80s. He should know better. I think people like Pewdie Pie need to watch what they say because having the game developers come after them is going to happen more and more because they don't want their IP damaged by some streamer who likes to yell the N word out while playing their game. It's a bad look. And Pewdie Pie is going to fuck around and fuck shit up for everyone because he's a fucking moron and wants to do stupid shit like this.

*edit* Also, the solution to the problem of "Transformative works" or whatever people are calling it today would be to have these content streamers pay the game companies the same way music artists pay for sample rights. That or the game developers authorize the Youtubers to create content with their IP with guidelines like "Don't say the N word while you stream our game". People can push back on this if they want but I think this will be the direction this goes because advertisers won't want to be associated with this kind of behavior either. It's going to happen one way or another.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's different though. PewDiePie wasn't using Firewatch to promote morally appaling things. Is PewDiePie a shady person? Yes, but the Firewatch Let's Play and his statements are two seperated situations. He wasn't playing Firewatch when he said it and in he (probably) didn't use his Firewatch playthroughs to go on big rants about race relations. Sure, legally Campo Santo currently has the right to block PewDiePie's videos and the system on YouTube allows for it, but even though this has a better validation, this is not much different than other (shadier) devs in the past abusing the copyright system on YouTube to block videos critisizing their games.

Honestly though, it's pretty debatable if Campo Santo even should have full rights to say what happens with PewDiePie's content with their game in it. I see people here stating 'well, it's content creator vs. Let's Player', but that's not true. YouTube video creators à la PewDiePie (but also TotalBiscuit, Jim Sterling, etc.) that use other games' content to make their own videos are content creators of their own, in a sense they're not much different than remix artists like Girl Talk. Every single one of those creators should have some say about what happens with their video. That's why people hate the copyright system of YouTube, it gives full power to the rights holder of the original content while giving none to the content creator that used that content to create something new. Campo Santo has explicitely given permission to streamers/let's players to make money by using their game content, they can't just take that back because one guy who did has a bad moral code.

Playing a full game and talking over it is not remixing.

 

[CloudWolf]

Are let's play videos really transformative? I'd argue the ones that show an entire game from start to finish clearly aren't.

Depends what kind of Let's Play it is honestly. If it's a silent Let's Play, sure, that's literally watching the game. However, in cases like PewDiePie it's definitely transformative to a degree. People are watching thse videos because they like PewDiePie and his shenanigans, not because they want to see what Firewatch is all about.

 

[Armaros]

Depends what kind of Let's Play it is honestly. If it's a silent Let's Play, sure, that's literally watching the game. However, in cases like PewDiePie it's definitely transformative to a degree. People are watching thse videos because they like PewDiePie and his shenanigans, not because they want to see what Firewatch is all about.

Movie Parody Riff tracks cant just put their track on top of the entire movie and distribute it that way.

And they have way more standing to use Fair Use then Let's Plays. And its still not enough.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Personally his personal opinion shouldn't have been anywhere near his job at all.

This was a stupid decision on his part.

https://twitter.com/vanaman/status/906984060215427072

This tweet especially made no sense. If he doesn't want people playing the game how they see fit why not just make a movie? Why bother releasing anything at all if you're going to be trying to ruin someone else because of something they said that had nothing related to your game at all.

Seriously this is just a poly to see if they could get more sales, but it seems like it just entirely backfired on them instead. They can't just run back on a statement they said about being able to stream, and monetize their games. Then just do this? This is beyond hypocritical.

Why didn't they do this for Dunkey then? Doesn't everyone remember that? Or is this happening because he's more popular and there's a chance to drive traffic. Regardless who it is, and what they've done. No developer should put their personal opinion into their job or it backfires nearly all the time. Yooka-Laylee did it and that backfired, so did that other person that sued over their music.

His "person opinion" that racism is wrong?

Nah he should speak out anytime and lol Yooka-Laylee should have just kept JonTron in because they too shouldn't say racism is wrong?

Btw that speaking out against racism gets Devs harassed aka what you call backfiring is an indictment of the gaming community not the Devs

 

[Northeastmonk]

I watched the PUBG video and I was sad seeing him say that. I thought he knew better. He reminds me of those kids who talk about rape and those who hate minorties online. It's awful.

He's also in the spotlight for media. He's making money by being a personality. It's like a news agency firing a reporter for their personal actions or comments.

You can't very well take away a Microsoft license from a racist. If he's being supported then his supporter can go after them.

I don't like the idea of being disliked by a developer and telling me I shouldn't play their game. But this was a racist comment made by a guy who makes millions every year playing games.

He makes gamers look bad.

I think the violence debate was fixed by the ESRB. Just like movies, TV and music are regulated by allowing people to know what kind of content they are getting. Sure there are extremist. They want to control what we can enjoy.
To me, the video game industry has a lot of different sections. The copyright section and all the legal battles fought behind the scenes. The contracts to have people promote their games and the various services out there for gamers to use/manipulate.

Social media has already made the boundaries between us and the developer closer. If you wanted to you can tell a game developer their game is awesome or you can have no filter and go bonkers. A lot of these top designers are listening and watching.

His comment was horrible because it's racist and the fact that he is a role model for gamers on YouTube. He's been on talk shows and other gaming programs.

I realize there's a ton of news outlets and people who enjoy games. But there's also a popularity contest going on at times. He should seriously watch what he says. He's destroyed his character in my mind.

 

[Blam]

His "person opinion" that racism is wrong?

Nah he should speak out anytime and lol Yooka-Laylee should have just kept JonTron in because they too shouldn't say racism is wrong?

Btw that speaking out against racism gets Devs harassed aka what you call backfiring is an indictment of the gaming community not the Devs

No that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he shouldn't have thrown his personal thoughts about someone into his job. I'm not saying racism is wrong is his personal opinion, I'm saying he should leave stuff like that out of his job. Leaving things like this out of his job makes him more neutral.

Either way what both parties did was wrong (Pewdiepie way more then what Sean did).

 

[Majukun]

Are let's play videos really transformative? I'd argue the ones that show an entire game from start to finish clearly aren't.

difficult stance to sell since people tune in for the streamer and not the game..and we know they do since otherwise you wouldn't have more and less successfull youtubers since the game is the same for everyone....it's the way people play and the commentary they add that makes the content,and that is, indeed, a transformative act, no doubt about it.

If the content is featured prominently in the "new" work, the developers still have right to their work and are able to deny the "publication" of the new derivative work. Fair Use is very limited right and it's pretty much only prevalent in the United States.

The right owner has and will always have a right to deny the usage of their intellectual property everywhere else. Especially if it's used for profit. But in this case the developer has given a public consent to monetising their content and permission to create new works out of it, they are out of luck as such.

the right on the content is lost the moment you sell the copy to the user..you can decide to not sell your work to the guy,but once you do,you don't have the right to stop what he does with your game.

of course if we are talking about ideal "right" and not just what youtube decides because it's their website on their server.

tell me another business where if you do something using someone else's work (which is pretty much everything, from the guy who has a store built by someone else's hands, to the taxi driver that drives a car made by someone else's factory), that "someone else" still keeps the ability to veto your work.

 

[Oxymoron]

Yep. And very few of them will blame pdp's fuckups for causing it.

Well, it really wouldn't be his fault! If LPs get determined to not be fair use, it's not going to be because he said the n-word. "LPs exist, streamers make money on it, and game devs tolerate them forever and nobody ever tests their legality" is not a stable equilibrium. There was always going to be a court case about this eventually.

 

[Armorous]

How would a ruling in their favor effect youtubers who critique content created by other youtube creators?

 

[Dragon_Rocks]

Ummmm....

That's not remotely compareable.

You purchase those other stuff legally and use them to make a youtube video which makes you money. How is that different from purchasing a video game and using it to make a video which makes you money? I can do a skateboarding tips and tricks video, a workout video uisng fitness equipments, a video showing the features of my new car or camera, a bike stunt video etc. all which involve me doing something with the legally purchased item. SHould the other companies be given the right to have me take down the video just because they don't like the way I behave or think?

So you are saying you can read an entire book with your personal annotations and then sell the audio-book without the permission of the author and/or publisher?

I didn't say that at all. Read my reply above.

Advertising and sponsership deals are a thing.

If some dirt bike racer covered in corporate logos came out and said "Oh and fuck the Jews!", all those sponsers are within their right to pull that motherfucker's funding. If a movie is made where the protagonist goes around beating immigrants, every intentional and non-intentional bit of product placement has to be cleared. Meaning if this protagonist started assaulting a migrant worker, then reached for a visible can of Coke, it means the Coca-Cola company had to approve of its use (and I would assume they most-certainly wouldn't.)

I am not talking about sponsorship at all. Read my reply above. Do you think Coca-cola or Pepsi should be able to get your video down in which you are behaving/acting in a way which doesn't go well with them while drinking their product, which you bought from a local store legally but have no legal contract with them? What about clothing companies etc. in the same way? Should they pull down videos of people acting badly wearing their clothes?

 

[OdysseusVA]

No that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he shouldn't have thrown his personal thoughts about someone into his job. I'm not saying racism is wrong is his personal opinion, I'm saying he should leave stuff like that out of his job. Leaving things like this out of his job makes him more neutral.

Either way what both parties did was wrong (Pewdiepie way more then what Sean did).

both sides lol

Im all for it
If a developer doesn't want their IP associated with a racist then power to them


It will also knock these fucks down a peg or two

Here is Keemstar's answer to those tweets (attention, he cusses a little bit):

- https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/907017914083143680