Here is Keemstar's answer to those tweets (attention, he cusses a little bit):
- https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/907017914083143680
Starting off with "know your role"? Really?
Here is Keemstar's answer to those tweets (attention, he cusses a little bit):
- https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/907017914083143680
Don't really care about the view point of one racist defending anotherFor the same principle we get to care about what you say (that is how forums work, ya know): sharing an opinion, viewpoint.
Especially from people that make a living on the platform (the fact you respect them or not is a different story, and not the main point).
He explains how YouTubers promoting his games have greatly boosted his sales.
No, the DMCA should be denied because Campo Santo had granted blanket permission for uploading (monetised) videos of Firewatch.Are you suggesting a DMCA take-down would be denied by invoking some freedom of speech slippery slope?
For the same principle we get to care about what you say (that is how forums work, ya know): sharing an opinion, viewpoint.
Especially from people that make a living on the platform (the fact you respect them or not is a different story, and not the main point).
He explains how YouTubers promoting his games have greatly boosted his sales.
Makes sense. Its really no different from The Rolling Stones not allowing their music to be played during a Trump campaign.
Here is Keemstar's answer to those tweets (attention, he cusses a little bit):
- https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/907017914083143680
No, the DMCA should be denied because Campo Santo had granted blanket permission for uploading (monetised) videos of Firewatch.
Their IP is not being associated with racism in a legal sense. Their is no confusion in the market about the Campo Santo IPs when PewDiePie or whoever makes a video with racist commentary over the game. It is PewDiePie's video or stream. It seems confusion only happens if say PewDiePie made a fan game closely resembling the original that it could be recognized as official.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.
Yes. The videos in question were made with the understanding that Campo Santo had granted blanket permission for everyone.So you argue that the copyright holders cannot legally revoke permission from an individual at a later date?
Their IP is not being associated with racism in a legal sense. Their is no confusion in the market about the Campo Santo IPs when PewDiePie or whoever makes a video with racist commentary over the game. It is PewDiePie's video or stream. It seems confusion only happens if say PewDiePie made a fan game closely resembling the original that it could be recognized as official.
Furthermore, we're complicit: I'm sure we've made money off of the 5.7M views that video has and that's something for us to think about.
Makes sense. Its really no different from The Rolling Stones not allowing their music to be played during a Trump campaign.
If companies and advertisers can do it because they don't want their product associated with racists, sexists, neonazis, etc, why can't a developer do the same?
What's the difference between that and BMV pulling their ads from Breitbart (aka stop monetizing our stuff, we don't want to be associated with you)?
Yes. The videos in question were made with the understanding that Campo Santo had granted blanket permission for everyone.
I don't agree. Everyone means everyone.Blanket permissions doesn't mean they can't choose who to dissociate with later on if an individual turns out to be a very vile.
It is different. Rolling Stones have a right to the reproduction of its music, and that's what's happening at a Trump rally. Game developers have a right to the reproduction of their games, but that's not what's happening. The game is still sitting on PewDiePie's computer in one piece while he streams a video of the game's output to a computer with commentary.Makes sense. Its really no different from The Rolling Stones not allowing their music to be played during a Trump campaign.
Arent there usually contracts involved in advertising deals reviewed by teams of lawyers on both sides? They are also paying money to Breitbart to advertise.If companies and advertisers can do it because they don't want their product associated with racists, sexists, neonazis, etc, why can't a developer do the same?
What's the difference between that and BMV pulling their ads from Breitbart because they don't want to be associated with them?
If companies and advertisers can do it because they don't want their product associated with racists, sexists, neonazis, etc, why can't a developer do the same?
What's the difference between that and BMV pulling their ads from Breitbart because they don't want to be associated with them?
Aren't there usually contracts involved in advertising deals reviewed by teams of lawyers on both sides? They are also paying money to Breitbart to advertise.
BMW isn't permitted to prevent Breitbart from writing reviews of BMW cars or taking pictures of their cars and posting it on their site.
Because advertisers made a specific agreement with whoever that they can choose to rescind at any time or per the contract. When Campo Santo makes a game and puts it out to the public and PewDiePie does something different with it by making a video, no such agreement was made because it shouldn't need to be. CS owns its thing and PDP owns his, but they have little to do with each other.If companies and advertisers can do it because they don't want their product associated with racists, sexists, neonazis, etc, why can't a developer do the same?
What's the difference between that and BMV pulling their ads from Breitbart because they don't want to be associated with them?
They're only doing it for moral reasons. We'd be upset if a racist took down a video from someone not racist because the YouTube didn't hate black people or whatever.weren't people super pissed when Nintendo started to take down vids for simply showing off stuff? I mean PDP is a POS and I know people wish that he gets got for it...but ehhhh. Lets flip it and say some Bigot Game Dev saw some youtuber tweet about equality or whatever and felt offended and thus wanted to demonetize their vids because of that. Piss poor business sense and career suicide imo but on the technical sense its the same thing. A system that is based off of feelings does not work. There needs to be set in stone guidelines of what is allowed and what isn't. Its not like he was yelling slurs on his firewatch video, so him being a racist loser elsewhere isn't even effecting their product. They don't have a strong case here beyond "this dude sucks"...and while you all may wish that was enough...it isn't, mainly for the flipside of things also not being enough.
Personally, I feel like the IP creator has the right to do damn near whatever they please.....I just remember there being quite a bit of pushback when it was done for more other means...you can't have it both ways. Morality unfortunately muddies this quite a bit.
If companies and advertisers can do it because they don't want their product associated with racists, sexists, neonazis, etc, why can't a developer do the same?
What's the difference between that and BMV pulling their ads from Breitbart because they don't want to be associated with them?
Are you suggesting a DMCA take-down would be denied by invoking some freedom of speech slippery slope?
This incident should be enough for developers to establish a precedent with platforms like YouTube and Twitch.
Deny a key to him for the next game, whatever... But abusing the DMCA like this is treading dangerous ground that I really don't like.
I more than welcome both parties to take it to court. I'd like to get legal precedent on this. They can both afford the legal battle but I think we already have it with the h3h3 debacle.
Because we already acknowledge the power of advertisers to police anything they are involved with, but don't want copyright holders to have the same power over video content on the internet.
We already give that power to companies. Which is why Movie, TV reactions etc. all have very clearly defined rules of 10 minutes of video on average etc.
If anything the Gaming Industry in its typical grey area of relationship with advertising has let people run wild with their videos. A Video Game and its maker should be as well protected
I think it's the opposite, the current status quo with video games is reasonable and the use of other media should been in a similar state. Legally it is all murky because no one wants to bring it to the courts, but that's all the more reason I'm not going to cheer Campo Santo for daring someone to do it.
But guys, you're missing something essential here. Movies and TV are not analogous because that footage IS the copyrighted work. IP holders of video games have ownership of the game, but who said anything about videos of them being played?We already give that power to companies. Which is why Movie, TV reactions etc. all have very clearly defined rules of 10 minutes of video on average etc.
If anything the Gaming Industry in its typical grey area of relationship with advertising has let people run wild with their videos. A Video Game and its maker should be as well protected
Rolling my eyes.It's pretty simple - freedom of speech doesn't exist/work only when it suits us...
ps3ud0 8)
If I have content and you use that content to make money while using hate speech then you get fucked.
If you make money with my content and you just trash talk it then I have to stfu.
Do not give racists or white supremacists a fucking inch.
They will take 100 miles.
They will abuse and ruin the entire system.
They've done this with everything people gave an inch on.
There's no legal precedent either way which is why there's debateBut guys, you're missing something essential here. Movies and TV are not analogous because that footage IS the copyrighted work. IP holders of video games have ownership of the game, but who said anything about videos of them being played?
Sure, but regardless, I don't think they're at all analogous and the eventual legality and this conversation shouldn't be based off the asumption that they are. There's a reasons devs put out executable files and discs of theit games and not just a video of their game being played.There's no legal precedent either way which is why there's debate
You can probably argue about cutscenes and music alone being enough
They're only doing it for moral reasons. We'd be upset if a racist took down a video from someone not racist because the YouTube didn't hate black people or whatever.
We can argue on the legal side where Camp Santo likely doesn't have a steady footing, but that's for YouTube to decide since it's a private service.
Being angry in the past over content ID claims and devs trying to censor criticism is completely different from this situation
There's no legal precedent either way which is why there's debate
You can probably argue about cutscenes and music alone being enough
They say one day they want to cover a BMW car they borrow from someone else or purchase without manufacturer cooperation.The crux of it lies with the "transformation" of content. When does it cease being CampoSanto's content and become PDP's due to his commentary and gameplay?
The DMCA isn't cut out to deal with games and let's plays. It's hardly cut out for any modern content. Lord knows Washington isn't well equipped enough to put forth some new legislation.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Depends on how that content ended up on Breitbart. Was it a direct site buy? A network buy? Through a programmatic platform? Without knowing the details, I can't really say.
But guys, you're missing something essential here. Movies and TV are not analogous because that footage IS the copyrighted work. IP holders of video games have ownership of the game, but who said anything about videos of them being played?
I would say video games are different though. Not playing a game and playing a game are not perfect substitutes as they are in passive media.We already give that power to companies. Which is why Movie, TV reactions etc. all have very clearly defined rules of 10 minutes of video on average etc.
If anything the Gaming Industry in its typical grey area of relationship with advertising has let people run wild with their videos. A Video Game and its maker should be as well protected