I'm not sure this boils down to much more than 'I don't like how they're using my content,' which is a pretty dangerous precedent. Do we force creators to deal with usuage during criticism of their work, but have power if the transformative part is morally abhorrent?
Just not sure how you could draw a line and keep Fair Use a strong legal argument..
This is where I'm at as well.
Like, okay, I have a pretty principle stance on copyright needing to function as a Public Good. Other public goods include things like the airwaves, roads, stuff like that. Like, if we go back in time, before a lot of gigantic companies started merging with each other to create monopolies that destroyed copyright law, we can see that copyright law also functioned in this way. The intent/purpose of copyright law is to protect the creator of that work for a set period of time before allowing it to become public domain.
This is something that's recognized in most fields of criticism/scholarly theory/etc as well. Roland Barthes, whether he meant to or not in "death of the author," essentially makes the case, whether intentionally or not, that the public will inevitably take a work as its own. That's simply the nature of culture. You cannot control what people do with your ideas, because ideas don't work that way. Once someone is exposed to your ideas, they will, inevitably, take some ownership over those ideas.
It is generally seen, by anyone who cares about the culture in which they live, that this completely human, unstoppable behavior is crucial to the flourishing of human culture and interaction.
Copyright law exists--or is meant to exist, in its idealistic form--as a means of allowing creators to profit from the works they create prior to the work entering the public domain. Corporations, most notably Disney, have worked to treat art as a property that can be controlled and limited.
I see this as an abuse of copyright law in its intent--this isn't about protecting Campo Santo's ability to make money, this is about their desire to limit someone else's expression.
While that expression is
reprehensible, this is not the purpose of copyright law, and Campo Santo would be abusing it to issue a DMCA takedown.
I find the whole "all youtubing is copyright infringement" statment made by Vanaman to be an absolutely disgusting and excessively capitalist take on art's function.
I get being mad that shitty people like your shit, but this is a lot worse, I think.
Some article was floating around last week that said something like (and I'm paraphrasing) "hey, you don't like what the ACLU is doing? Who do you think should define hate speech? The government? The government run by Trump and Pence? You'd rather that the Republican-majority government impose limits on speech? This is why the ACLU has to defend the indefensible. To prevent people like Trump and Pence from being able to limit what YOU say. Because if you want the government to control speech, if you set that precedent, then there's a good chance they're coming after your speech. So, to protect you, the ACLU has to protect awful people."
So when Campo Santo suggests abusing the DMCA and setting this precedent that YouTubing, which is a net good thing, is infringement, I think they are helping push us towards the Disneyfication of copyright law, and robbing us of a public good.
I mean, I can't think of any way that what they're doing is a good thing, even though I get being mad at a dumb ass YouTuber.
I feel like, if I'm upset at/opposed to a musician using DMCA takedowns on work that she composed but does not retain ownership of, or DMCA takedowns by devs who don't like negative criticism, I also must, on principle, oppose what Campo Santo is doing here.
I don't see any case where I can feel otherwise.
Anywho, LPs are transformative works, so I'm not sure how a DMCA claim would stand up legally.
It is possible that developers/publishers use PDP's behaviour as a means to an end.
I've thought for a while that LPs in their current form are on borrowed time. Far too many making money on other's work without any form of kick back.
If I buy a hammer and I use it to build a dozen houses, the hammer manufacturer doesn't get a cut of the houses I built. They sold me a hammer, I bought the hammer, it's mine now. I can do what I want with it. Anyone who thinks devs should get paid for coverage of their work is an asshole. And I say this as a dev.
