BolognaOni
Member
Never thought I'd be nostalgic for review bombs over dedicated servers...
There's nothing hypocritical about it. They don't like him because he is a terrible subhuman. They are 100% within their legal rights to terminate his ability to make money off of their game for this reason, which has no bearing on the hundreds of others who aren't (yet) known to be the same as PDP. Not even close to comparable.
Racism exists in the world should I kill myself now to avoid the disappointment in humanity?
I guess the question is the motivation. A DMCA takedown request is made to prevent someone from infringing on your copyrighted work. Why did they allow him to do that for so long, and only now remove it? Well they admit it is because of his racist actions. So does that mean they are ok with non-racists infringing on their copyrights?
While I think they are within their rights to do this, as you can make a good argument that let's plays don't fall into fair use, it seems slightly hypocritical to allow lets plays to infringe on your copyrighted work unless you don't like the person doing the lets play.
That's called consumer rights. Although in the case of Firewatch, it's getting a terrible use, it actually got a great use for Batman Arkham Knight.
Well, that's not better in my opinion.
how about speak up, try to make things better and expect the same of your video game storefronts?
I guess the question is the motivation. A DMCA takedown request is made to prevent someone from infringing on your copyrighted work. Why did they allow him to do that for so long, and only now remove it? Well they admit it is because of his racist actions. So does that mean they are ok with non-racists infringing on their copyrights?
While I think they are within their rights to do this, as you can make a good argument that let's plays don't fall into fair use, it seems slightly hypocritical to allow lets plays to infringe on your copyrighted work unless you don't like the person doing the lets play.
Now if they had explicitly granted PDP license to do the let's play, and decided to revoke it, then common sense would say they would contact him and inform him that the license was revoked and to remove the videos within a reasonable timeline, and if he does not they will DMCA them down. If they had an existing agreement it wouldn't make sense to jump straight to DMCA without informing him first. Again, this only applies if they did have some sort of agreement with him in place.
I am not making a big deal out of this, they were within their rights to do it. But it did seem to go against the intention of the DMCA and slightly hypocritical.
No doubt that shit like this wouldn't happen if people were losing their account for something like this.Firewatch forums from a couple days ago.
Again, it goes against the spirit of the law. If they believe that let's plays are infringing on their copyright, then they should DCMA all lets plays.
If however they have granted licenses to streamers to make lets play's, then they are absolutely within their rights to withhold or revoke licenses to streamers they don't like. If those streamers did let's plays anyway, they can issue DCMA takedown requests.
The DCMA does not protect non-racists from stealing copyrighted works.
Yes, they are okay with non-racists infringing on their copyright, for mutually beneficial purpose (advertisement for them, revenue for the video maker). That is a good stance to have. They were totally within their legal and ethical rights to revoke that whenever they wish. Let's Plays are really not protected. Allowing their stuff to be used for any reason is within their purview and revoking the license was totally fair and a brave thing to do. Why would it be hypocritical to terminate a business relationship when you no longer like the other person?
Again, it goes against the spirit of the law. If they believe that let's plays are infringing on their copyright, then they should DCMA all lets plays.
If however they have granted licenses to streamers to make lets play's, then they are absolutely within their rights to withhold or revoke licenses to streamers they don't like. If those streamers did let's plays anyway, they can issue DCMA takedown requests.
The DCMA does not protect non-racists from stealing copyrighted works.
I didn't even take this into account, but it just reaffirms my preference of just owning the game itself without all this superfluous bullshit. Steam (and similar "services" from competitors) continue to be this uncalled for thing shoving themselves between you and the games you buy.
Soon only racist trolls will use Steam, you should be ashamed if you still use Steam.
M°°nblade;249036114 said:Well, that's not better in my opinion.
If an online community can't do better than censure or ban everything that's slightly offendable or political incorrect in order to avoid conflicts and controversity among members, to me that means gaming communities still have a long way to go before getting called 'mature'.
I'd say leaving it to the developers to decide how to handle their own communities is the best approach Valve could take.
So....not what the article author did then, by deleting the account?
Racism exists in the world should I kill myself now to avoid the disappointment in humanity?
This is true. Which is exactly why forums should be properly moderated.M°°nblade;249036114 said:Well, that's not better in my opinion.
If an online community can't do better than censure or ban everything that's slightly offendable or political incorrect in order to avoid conflicts and controversity among members, to me that means gaming communities still have a long way to go before getting called 'mature'.
I'd say leaving it to the developers to decide how to handle their own communities is the best approach Valve could take.
This is one of the reasons I don't understand the die hard devotion to Steam. Valve really needs to start giving a fuck.
This looks like it makes a mockery of slavery by turning it into a Tetris game.
This is not how you educate people on slavery.
You have to be kidding. You need a game to tell you that being sold like property and chained to the hull of a ship for a 2+ month journey is inhumane?
No, no videogame will ever "showcase how inhumane the slave trade was". Even a "tasteful" videogame couldn't do that. It's the same reason why I argue against VR games of the holocaust.
he is speaking out about it, and expecting more for the store.
I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion.
They are well within their rights to terminate it for whatever reason they see fit. Just because they did it for one person for a very specific reason does not mean they have to do it for all. I don't know what 'spirit of law' you're talking about, because it does not exist.
As the copyright owner you are generally free to give explicit or implicit license to anyone you want for whatever reason you what. The definition of copyright infringement is using a copyrighted work in a way not permitted by the copyright owner, so essentially there is absolutely nothing wrong with Campo Santo allowing Let's Plays and then deciding they didn't want to do that anymore, or with one specific person. Copyright holders are not required to aggressively protect their rights from everyone.
You MIGHT be able to make a case that the ability to assign or withhold copyright clashes with anti-discrimination law, MAYBE (i.e. if a developer said "only white people may make Let's Play videos using my work"). I am not a lawyer so I have no idea how this plays out in practice or in theory. Regardless, that is clearly not what is going on here, and there are obvious cases where only certain people or groups of people are granted certain rights to a work (ex. I pay someone money, and now I get a license to copy or resell their work).
The article's name? The athours actions described in it? His attempt to guilt people into doing the same thing?
The post you quoted was a sarcastic comparisons to those parts of the article and OP.
No one is saying that it's wrong to speak up about the bad things happening on the platform, or calls for Valve do to more.
They are well within their rights to terminate a license to do a lets play, I agree. But was there a license granted? Or were they just allowing lets plays before because they are fine with them?
Either they think lets plays are infringing or they don't. If they don't think they are infringing they shouldn't issue a DMCA takedown request even if they don't like the guy.
If they do think they are infringing, but only want to allow certain people to do them. They should grant license to do them, while issuing takedowns for those without license.
Point is this: If you believe someone is legally using your content, you should not abuse the DMCA to punish them.
As the copyright owner you are generally free to give explicit or implicit license to anyone you want for whatever reason you what. The definition of copyright infringement is using a copyrighted work in a way not permitted by the copyright owner, so essentially there is absolutely nothing wrong with Campo Santo allowing Let's Plays and then deciding they didn't want to do that anymore, or with one specific person. Copyright holders are not required to aggressively protect their rights from everyone.
You MIGHT be able to make a case that the ability to assign or withhold copyright clashes with anti-discrimination law, MAYBE (i.e. if a developer said "only white people may make Let's Play videos using my work"). I am not a lawyer so I have no idea how this plays out in practice or in theory. Regardless, that is clearly not what is going on here, and there are obvious cases where only certain people or groups of people are granted certain rights to a work (ex. I pay someone money, and now I get a license to copy or resell their work).
M°°nblade;249036114 said:Well, that's not better in my opinion.
If an online community can't do better than censure or ban everything that's slightly offendable or political incorrect in order to avoid conflicts and controversity among members, to me that means gaming communities still have a long way to go before getting called 'mature'.
I'd say leaving it to the developers to decide how to handle their own communities is the best approach Valve could take.
You are making no sense. Please stop responding to me until you do.
Yes, they are okay with non-racists infringing on their copyright, for mutually beneficial purpose (advertisement for them, revenue for the video maker). That is a good stance to have. They were totally within their legal and ethical rights to revoke that whenever they wish. Let's Plays are really not protected. Allowing their stuff to be used for any reason is within their purview and revoking the license was totally fair and a brave thing to do. Why would it be hypocritical to terminate a business relationship when you no longer like the other person?
They are well within their rights to terminate a license to do a lets play, I agree. But was there a license granted? Or were they just allowing lets plays before because they are fine with them?
Either they think lets plays are infringing or they don't. If they don't think they are infringing they shouldn't issue a DMCA takedown request even if they don't like the guy.
If they do think they are infringing, but only want to allow certain people to do them. They should grant license to do them, while issuing takedowns for those without license.
Point is this: If you believe someone is legally using your content, you should not abuse the DMCA to punish them.
Well it's too late now. Welcome to the internet and all that jazz. People been like this its just that now it is easier to get online and spout your idiocy. You moderate them on Steam, they show up on Twitter or whatever the hell else they can find.
i just use steam to launch pubg, ignore the shitty community features and youre fine
this too, this shit has always been there its just easier to see it now thanks to the modern internet
It remains one of the absolute best ways to buy games, and there was a period a few years ago where it was easily the best. Cheapest, most features, most convenience, just light years ahead of the console systems or any competing PC service."Suck it up buttercup" is never an acceptable answer
The worship of steam is the weirdest thing i seen in gaming. A golden calf you literally shove money into, I wonder if there are people out there that make Walmart and Whole Foods fan art?
I always report users that have nazi or any offensive avatars but I don't know if Steam or Valve do something about it.
I wish the report profile function actually did something anymore. 5 years ago they'd community ban people I've reported and even email me thanks for the help for x amount of cases. But in last 4 years they haven't taken any action for any profiles I've reported.
How do you even find that group? I search for the name, Steam returned no hits. Did a more general search and all i could find was edgy dumbasses with groups of 1 to 5 people at most.Slightly offendable:
he is speaking out about it, and expecting more for the store.
I honestly have no idea how you came to this conclusion.
NeoGaf doesn't have even 0.1% of the users Steam has. What a ridiculous comparison. Not to mention the requirement of a paid email and several months until approval. You do realize that's the thing that keeps most of the trolls away, yes?If Neo-Fucking-GAF can be moderated in a rather successful manner, where the mods don't get anything out of it (other than keep a community they enjoy tidy), I'm sure Valve with its billions can get on the fucking moderation train.
Fuck, I'm sure there are plenty of alright people who'd do it for free lmao. It's just Valve being lazy fucks as usual.
i just use steam to launch pubg, ignore the shitty community features and youre fine
this too, this shit has always been there its just easier to see it now thanks to the modern internet
Slightly offendable:
I think the idea behind marginalizing these destructive users, operates on the assumption that you kick them off popular, mainstream platforms, one platform at a time.Well it's too late now. Welcome to the internet and all that jazz. People been like this its just that now it is easier to get online and spout your idiocy. You moderate them on Steam, they show up on Twitter or whatever the hell else they can find.
They used to back in 2012
I googled it and it looks like that group doesn't exist anymore, so it's not like Valve doesn't do anything.Slightly offendable:
Yes, like I said: slightly offendable. I can't see the content of the discussions in that steamgroup but if it's just the swastika and hitler picture that offend you so much, beware of 'google images', you will find it there as well.Slightly offendable:
I think you are. Nothing's 'running rampant'.The fact that you think allowing racist, misogynistic and otherwise vile beliefs to run rampant and potentially harm others equates to 'mature' community shows how utterly divorced from reality you are.
If Neo-Fucking-GAF can be moderated in a rather successful manner, where the mods don't get anything out of it (other than keep a community they enjoy tidy), I'm sure Valve with its billions can get on the fucking moderation train.
Fuck, I'm sure there are plenty of alright people who'd do it for free lmao. It's just Valve being lazy fucks as usual.