Support NeoGAF

[benicillin]

As I suspected.

This is all really dumb anyway, I'm sure Campo Santo wishes they didn't have to use the DMCA to do it but the platform holders have absolutely no interest in policing their own platforms or giving developers tools to protect themselves from having racists use their content to make money.

If something like this ever goes to court, which I suspect it will eventually in some case or another, I foresee a lot of people being very surprised when the bottom falls out on the LP industry. It's not sustainable.

 

[riverfr0zen]

People keep imagining a slippery slope, but there's a pretty consistent set of principles used to determine Fair Use, and reviews are on one side of it and LPs on the other. It's not so much a slope as a pretty obvious step. You can't rebroadcast the entirety of someone's copyrighted work without their permission.

So much this. There is no 'slope' here.

 

[TumblingHippo]

There's a reason why Rifftrax, Giant Bomb, and other content providers like RedLetterMedia only release the audio for their commentary tracks. They're not licencing the movies alongside their commentary, even if their content is transformative.

Maybe let's players could pay a fee to record full playthrough of games, or offer commentary that can be presented seperately? I enjoy let's plays but I think a Dev should have the right to limit who streams their work, to their benefit and detriment.

 

[Mael]

There's a reason why Rifftrax, Giant Bomb, and other content providers like RedLetterMedia only release the audio for their commentary tracks. They're not licencing the movies alongside their commentary, even if their content is transformative.

Maybe let's players could pay a fee to record full playthrough of games, or offer commentary that can be presented seperately? I enjoy let's plays but I think a Dev should have the right to limit who streams their work, to their benefit and detriment.

They don't even necessarily need to pay, they just need permission.
Of course IP owners don't have grant permission for free either.

 

[Hilbert]

This doesn't seem much different then the artist stopping that alt right pepe the frog book. That was transformative, money making and racist. And I thought that blocking was met with general approval.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/books/pepe-the-frog-cartoonist-childrens-book.html?mcubz=3&_r=0

 

[BlackJace]

Going forward, I feel like this can be solved by a contract from content holders stating that they reserve the right to terminate their relationship with content creators (ex. PDP) and take down videos using their content if they violate the TOS (one of which would be "Hey, don't spew racist crap while streaming our game pls).

 

[Timeaisis]

Let's plays are not ever going to be ruled as fair use.

I agree. Which means this tenuous relationship developers/publishers have with LPers is pretty soon going to collapse. The big sticking point in this case for me is Campo gave express permission to LPers on their website to stream their content, and is now going back on that in this specific case, which unfortunately gives PDP more ammunition against them.

 

[The Lamonster]

Bravo to the Firewatch devs for cleverly taking advantage of this incident and getting a ton of free press out of it. I'm sure it has already benefited them and prompted lots of new sales of their game. However, I struggle to see how this is good for the industry as a whole.

 

[chromatic9]

I agree. Which means this tenuous relationship developers/publishers have with LPers is pretty soon going to collapse. The big sticking point in this case for me is Campo gave express permission to LPers on their website to stream their content, and is now going back on that in this specific case, which unfortunately gives PDP more ammunition against them.

Campo are merely updating their licence. It's a permission that can be revoked at any time to anyone. PDP has nothing unless there's a specific contract we're not privy to. Reviews are fair use, Let's plays and streaming are just tolerated.

 

[Gestault]

Bravo to the Firewatch devs for cleverly taking advantage of this incident and getting a ton of free press out of it. I'm sure it has already benefited them and prompted lots of new sales of their game. However, I struggle to see how this is good for the industry as a whole.

It's very hard to look at this post as much more than talking out of both sides of your mouth. Copyright law is built for situations like this to protect a creator's ability to control how their work is used in other published media. That's good for the industry.

 

[Dyle]

There's a reason why Rifftrax, Giant Bomb, and other content providers like RedLetterMedia only release the audio for their commentary tracks. They're not licencing the movies alongside their commentary, even if their content is transformative.

Maybe let's players could pay a fee to record full playthrough of games, or offer commentary that can be presented seperately? I enjoy let's plays but I think a Dev should have the right to limit who streams their work, to their benefit and detriment.

Regarding Giantbomb, what about their full playthroughs of games in Steal My Sunshine, Exquisite Corps, Endurance Run, Beast in the East, etc. Is the CBSI legal team working with Nintendo and other companies to specifically secure rights for those games on a game by game basis or do they have blanket licenses that allow them to stream anything? Along those same lines do marathons like AGDQ have to license the games they show or potentially risk a DMCA strike?

It's so complicated and platform holders should really do a better job of informing content creators of their rights and the rights of copyright holders. I went through Youtube's copyright lesson after I got a strike on an unlisted, unmonetized video and it really didn't do anything to explain what was and wasn't legal and how I could contact a copyright holder if I wanted to license the video. And that was just a one-off meme video that I shared with a few friends, not a full-time monetized channel, which would require much more careful scrutiny. I guess that's what networks are for, but it's still a mess that I can't help but see only getting uglier and more complicated as more cases like this pop up

 

[Zap Rowsdower]

It's very hard to look at this post as much more than talking out of both sides of your mouth. Copyright law is built for situations like this to protect a creator's ability to control how their work is used in other published media. That's good for the industry.

Especially when it comes to combating the toxic as hell parts of the gaming community that the industry have just tried to ineffectually ignore for way too long.

 

[F34R]

Bravo to the Firewatch devs for cleverly taking advantage of this incident and getting a ton of free press out of it. I'm sure it has already benefited them and prompted lots of new sales of their game. However, I struggle to see how this is good for the industry as a whole.

Yeah, and they are getting a lot of free negative Steam reviews put up too..
http://wccftech.com/firewatch-negative-reviews-pewdiepie/

 

[ClosingADoor]

Regarding Giantbomb, what about their full playthroughs of games in Steal My Sunshine, Exquisite Corps, Endurance Run, Beast in the East, etc. Is the CBSI legal team working with Nintendo and other companies to specifically secure rights for those games on a game by game basis or do they have blanket licenses that allow them to stream anything? Along those same lines do marathons like AGDQ have to license the games they show or potentially risk a DMCA strike?

It's so complicated and platform holders should really do a better job of informing content creators of their rights and the rights of copyright holders. I went through Youtube's copyright lesson after I got a strike on an unlisted, unmonetized video and it really didn't do anything to explain what was and wasn't legal and how I could contact a copyright holder if I wanted to license the video. And that was just a one-off meme video that I shared with a few friends, not a full-time monetized channel, which would require much more careful scrutiny. I guess that's what networks are for, but it's still a mess that I can't help but see only getting uglier and more complicated as more cases like this pop up

That is mostly on the content maker to figure out. I don't really know what you expect Youtube to offer you here. You should contact the copyright holder before publishing, so you should know where the content comes from and then contact them.

Basic rule, if you don't know you have the rights, you probably don't. So from then on you need to figure out how to get them.

 

[7DollarHagane]

It's very hard to look at this post as much more than talking out of both sides of your mouth. Copyright law is built for situations like this to protect a creator's ability to control how their work is used in other published media. That's good for the industry.

Then why not dmca all of YouTube/twitch and not allow streaming their games at all unless they have previously vetted and approved that person? That's what Nintendo does. They get a lot of shit for it but it's specifically to avoid situations like this.

YouTube comments alone being associated with your game should give reason for not allowing let's plays. Even if the person in the video is perfectly fine there's sure to be shitlords in the comments or recommended videos.

Once you open that door of "anyone can let's play our game because it's mutually beneficial" there's good and bad that comes with that.

 

[Skittles]

Then why not dmca all of YouTube/twitch and not allow streaming their games at all unless they have previously vetted and approved that person? That's what Nintendo does. They get a lot of shit for it but it's specifically to avoid situations like this.

YouTube comments alone being associated with your game should give reason for not allowing let's plays. Even if the person in the video is perfectly fine there's sure to be shitlords in the comments or recommended videos.

Once you open that door of "anyone can let's play our game because it's mutually beneficial" there's good and bad that comes with that.

Because they can choose whether or not to file copyright violations. There's no law saying they're forced to file them either

 

[7DollarHagane]

Because they can choose whether or not to file copyright violations. There's no law saying they're forced to file them either

They chose not to file copyright violations for Livestreams when they said that on their official site for the game.

http://www.firewatchgame.com/about/

If someone was stealing assets or selling their assets for another game that would be a different copyright issue, but they pretty much leave the door open for streaming/profiting from streaming here.

I'm not saying they shouldn't want PDP to take down his videos of their games, I'm saying that it's probably too late for that and they will have to change their policy going forward if they want to avoid people they don't like making videos of their game.

 

[Oxymoron]

They chose not to file copyright violations for Livestreams when they said that on their official site for the game.

http://www.firewatchgame.com/about/

If someone was stealing assets or selling their assets for another game that would be a different copyright issue, but they pretty much leave the door open for streaming/profiting from streaming here.

I'm not saying they shouldn't want PDP to take down his videos of their games, I'm saying that it's probably too late for that and they will have to change their policy going forward if they want to avoid people they don't like making videos of their game.

Why do they have to change their policy? It seems to be working fine for them.

This appeal to "you have to have consistent principles and adhere to them" is a bit missing the mark - Campo Santo is a private company, not the government. They're allowed to be capricious.

 

[Ozigizo]

I'm not saying they shouldn't want PDP to take down his videos of their games, I'm saying that it's probably too late for that and they will have to change their policy going forward if they want to avoid people they don't like making videos of their game.

Not legally binding.

Also, please stop confusing trademarks with DMCA.

 

[Skittles]

They chose not to file copyright violations for Livestreams when they said that on their official site for the game.

http://www.firewatchgame.com/about/

If someone was stealing assets or selling their assets for another game that would be a different copyright issue, but they pretty much leave the door open for streaming/profiting from streaming here.

I'm not saying they shouldn't want PDP to take down his videos of their games, I'm saying that it's probably too late for that and they will have to change their policy going forward if they want to avoid people they don't like making videos of their game.

Ok? They never said that it was a permanent allowance or that they couldn't revoke your ability to stream/make let's plays. Not a good point to make

 

[Sad Affleck]

I urge people to read the thread's title carefully.

"DMCA can target specific people, fully legal, no reasoning required."

This is ominous and actually quite disturbing. Replace DMCA with any other piece of legislation or policy and I am certain most people would recognize how disturbing it is.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I urge people to read the thread's title carefully.

"DMCA can target specific people, fully legal, no reasoning required."

This is ominous and actually quite disturbing. Replace DMCA with any other piece of legislation or policy and I am certain most people would recognize how disturbing it is.

Why would we replace it with any other legislation or policy, when that is not what this is about? What do you think is disturbing about this?

 

[7DollarHagane]

Not legally binding.

Also, please stop confusing trademarks with DMCA.

I don't see how any actual legal process would not see that statement as an open invitation to make video content using the game.

I'm not saying they can't or shouldnt file a dmca takedown I'm saying they would probably lose and set prescedent that these very streamer friendly policies get changed industry wide. It would be bad for everyone.

 

[Skittles]

I urge people to read the thread's title carefully.

"DMCA can target specific people, fully legal, no reasoning required."

This is ominous and actually quite disturbing. Replace DMCA with any other piece of legislation or policy and I am certain most people would recognize how disturbing it is.

How is it ominous that copyright holders can choose to enforce their copyright?

 

[Ozigizo]

I don't see how any actual legal process would not see that statement as an open invitation to make video content using the game.

I'm not saying they can't or shouldnt file a dmca takedown I'm saying they would probably lose and set prescedent that these very streamer friendly policies get changed industry wide. It would be bad for everyone.

Because the platform they use also gives them the right to revoke.

I urge people to read the thread's title carefully.

"DMCA can target specific people, fully legal, no reasoning required."

This is ominous and actually quite disturbing. Replace DMCA with any other piece of legislation or policy and I am certain most people would recognize how disturbing it is.

Stop it with the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Oxymoron]

I urge people to read the thread's title carefully.

"DMCA can target specific people, fully legal, no reasoning required."

This is ominous and actually quite disturbing. Replace DMCA with any other piece of legislation or policy and I am certain most people would recognize how disturbing it is.

"Drivers can refuse to pick up specific hitchhikers, fully legal, no reasoning required."

I'm shook.

 

[see5harp]

To be fair to Nintendo - fuck Nintendo and all of the people in charge there.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I don't see how any actual legal process would not see that statement as an open invitation to make video content using the game.

I'm not saying they can't or shouldnt file a dmca takedown I'm saying they would probably lose and set prescedent that these very streamer friendly policies get changed industry wide. It would be bad for everyone.

This makes little sense. If you think they will lose, then nothing will change. Actually, then that would set a precedent that companies like Nintendo can not limit Let's Plays or streams.

But they will not lose, since they have every right to enforce their copyright, and Let's Plays are not fair use. That statement is also in no way binding, it is not a contract and they can change it at any moment they want.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

They chose not to file copyright violations for Livestreams when they said that on their official site for the game.

http://www.firewatchgame.com/about/

If someone was stealing assets or selling their assets for another game that would be a different copyright issue, but they pretty much leave the door open for streaming/profiting from streaming here.

I'm not saying they shouldn't want PDP to take down his videos of their games, I'm saying that it's probably too late for that and they will have to change their policy going forward if they want to avoid people they don't like making videos of their game.

Lol they are not legally bound by saying anyone can use their work. Tomorrow they cam say anyone but racists can use our work and it wouldn't mean anything either. The law doesn't give a shit about what their site said because the site is a gesture of good will, not a legally binding document.

They are the rightful copyright owners, they dont forfeit that just because of the spirit of good will lol.

And further lol. If streamers genuinely thought they could win Let's Play as fair use they already would have done it. Like you ate playing this game where you think they would lose and publishers with lawyers out the ass are in the wrong. It's been said time and time again. Let's play is not fair use. They let it live for the benefit of everyone. Not because they would lose.

 

[ebullientprism]

Yeah I am not sure where I stand on this either. On one hand, I am fully with devs not wanting their games to be associated with racist shitstains like PDP. On the other hand, this is very open to abuse.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Lol they are not legally bound by saying anyone can use their work. Tomorrow they cam say anyone but racists can use our work and it wouldn't mean anything either. The law doesn't give a shit about what their site said because the site is a gesture of good will, not a legally binding document.

They are the rightful copyright owners, they dont forfeit that just because of the spirit of good will lol.

I think there's a reason big companies don't make blanket statements about streaming like that and why they make more specific agreements with streamers and YouTubers.

This makes little sense. If you think they will lose, then nothing will change. Actually, then that would set a precedent that companies like Nintendo can not limit Let's Plays or streams.

But they will not lose, since they have every right to enforce their copyright, and Let's Plays are not fair use. That statement is also in no way binding, it is not a contract and they can change it at any moment they want.

If they lose because they made a very open statement welcoming anyone to stream that was available on their official site for months, those kinds of things will be avoided in the future, that's my point.

 

[Geddy]

You people defending this DMCA request - I wonder how you'll feel when huge corporations start DMCAing content creators who disagree with their political alignment. Let's say StreamerX is a die-hard republican. Sonycorp decides they don't like that because they support the democratic party. Well hooray for StreamerX - his channel is in the crosshairs for speaking out against their candidate. Or the company president. Or anyone that they like.

It's easy to say "we don't want our content associated with someone who uses racial slurs" - how long until corporations start mass-censoring content from creators who don't like their games?

You guys gotta think in the broader scale of things. The DMCA should check into a battered women's shelter with all the corporations that abuse it. It wasn't made as a censoring tool to use impulsively against people you dislike, it was to protect intellectual property.

What if I made a Youtube channel that talks about games that I don't like? The companies behind those games can simply go through and flag all my videos because it's bad PR and they "don't want to be associated with that." Is that really what you want?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I think there's a reason big companies don't make blanket statements about streaming like that and why they make more specific agreements with streamers and YouTubers.

Why do you think no streamer has taken it to court? And no, you dont void your copyright by saying anyone is free to stream your work.

You people defending this DMCA request - I wonder how you'll feel when huge corporations start DMCAing content creators who disagree with their political alignment. It's easy to say "we don't want our content associated with someone who uses racial slurs" - how long until corporations start mass-censoring content from creators who don't like their games?

You guys gotta think in the broader scale of things. The DMCA should check into a battered women's shelter with all the corporations that abuse it. It wasn't made as a censoring tool to use impulsively against people you dislike, it was to protect intellectual property.

What if I made a Youtube channel that talks about games that I don't like? The companies behind those games can simply go through and flag all my videos because it's bad PR and they "don't want to be associated with that." Is that really what you want?

They can DMCA those people right now and for the last forever. You know why they don't? Because it will cause a shit storm they don't want over an issue they dont care about.

And lol, dude, fair use is a thing. Let's Plays arent fair use. They wont win trying to DMCA you into dust if you follow fair use and the level of precedent they open up if they abuse it then lose isnt worth it.

Think this through.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Why do you think no streamer has taken it to court? And no, you dont void your copyright by saying anyone is free to stream your work.

You don't void your copyright but you might void your ability to takedown streams and let's plays. Nobody knows. There's no legal precedent there. Do we want to find out? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[arturo2666]

Yeah, I'm fine with this.

 

[Ozigizo]

You don't void your copyright but you might void your ability to takedown streams and let's plays. Nobody knows. There's no legal precedent there. Do we want to find out? Maybe, maybe not.

No, you don't.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

You don't void your copyright but you might void your ability to takedown streams and let's plays. Nobody knows. There's no legal precedent there. Do we want to find out? Maybe, maybe not.

Let's plays aren't fair use. Streams aren't fair use. You literally can't void your ability to take down work under your IP. Permission isn't the same as a legally binding terma of use.

 

[Skittles]

I think there's a reason big companies don't make blanket statements about streaming like that and why they make more specific agreements with streamers and YouTubers.



If they lose because they made a very open statement welcoming anyone to stream that was available on their official site for months, those kinds of things will be avoided in the future, that's my point.

Big companies don't bother saying it because it's not legally binding so why bother? lol

You people defending this DMCA request - I wonder how you'll feel when huge corporations start DMCAing content creators who disagree with their political alignment. It's easy to say "we don't want our content associated with someone who uses racial slurs" - how long until corporations start mass-censoring content from creators who don't like their games?

You guys gotta think in the broader scale of things. The DMCA should check into a battered women's shelter with all the corporations that abuse it. It wasn't made as a censoring tool to use impulsively against people you dislike, it was to protect intellectual property.

What if I made a Youtube channel that talks about games that I don't like? The companies behind those games can simply go through and flag all my videos because it's bad PR and they "don't want to be associated with that." Is that really what you want?

DMCAs have nothing to with morals though, so this is a useless point to make. All let's plays are infringement on copyright. Reviews are covered under fair use

 

[Geddy]

Why do you think no streamer has taken it to court? And no, you dont void your copyright by saying anyone is free to stream your work.



They can DMCA those people right now and for the last forever. You know why they don't? Because it will cause a shit storm they don't want over an issue they dont care about.

And lol, dude, fair use is a thing. Let's Plays arent fair use. They wont win trying to DMCA you into dust if you follow fair use and the level of precedent they open up if they abuse it then lose isnt worth it.

Think this through.

_You_ think this through. History has shown that once the ability to censor becomes acceptable, it will only snowball from there. At no point has any entity given up the power to control what is out there.

Think this through.

 

[Geddy]

Big companies don't bother saying it because it's not legally binding so why bother? lol

DMCAs have nothing to with morals though, so this is a useless point to make. All let's plays are infringement on copyright. Reviews are covered under fair use

It's like no one on GAF thinks past the point of the next thread they read. Ya'll support censorship like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Just because it's technically legal doesn't mean that it's OK to make a political statement by using it.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

Lets plays seem about the equivalent of Mystery Science Theater to me. MST was clearly a transformative work. They still have to get rights to movies to riff on. Seems like it would be solely to the discretion of the copyright owner who can and cannot use their games in this manner.

 

[Oxymoron]

You don't void your copyright but you might void your ability to takedown streams and let's plays. Nobody knows. There's no legal precedent there. Do we want to find out? Maybe, maybe not.

You're seriously taking the position that in over a century of copyright law, nobody's ever bothered figuring out if giving permission to broadcast or reproduce part or all of your work is equivalent to giving up your copyright?

L
M
A
O

 

[Gotdatmoney]

_You_ think this through. History has shown that once the ability to censor becomes acceptable, it will only snowball from there. At no point has any entity given up the power to control what is out there.

Think this through.

The ability to censor has always been clear. This is what you dont get. They aren't censoring this for their own benefit. Not because they are unsure. You don't own these copyrights. What you think will happen is irrelevant. It's not your IP to worry about.

Of all the reasona to be scared PDP getting a DMCA for saying fucking nigger is like the most laughable one.

 

[Ozigizo]

_You_ think this through. History has shown that once the ability to censor becomes acceptable, it will only snowball from there. At no point has any entity given up the power to control what is out there.

Think this through.

It has?

Show me any example of this slippery slope that directly ties to DMCAs.

 

[Reebot]

Yeah, of course?

You can ask specific people to leave your property while allowing other to remain. You also don't "need a reason."

This isn't different.

 

[afroguy10]

Out of interest have Bluehole or Player Unknown said anything about this?

 

[Inuhanyou]

technically, it is the developers right to determine how their content is used...or that's how it should be.

not saying abuse of copyright is good, but if something like the pewdiepie situation comes out, devs should absolutely have the right to take action on anyone they feel is hurting their image

 

[ClosingADoor]

You people defending this DMCA request - I wonder how you'll feel when huge corporations start DMCAing content creators who disagree with their political alignment. Let's say StreamerX is a die-hard republican. Sonycorp decides they don't like that because they support the democratic party. Well hooray for StreamerX - his channel is in the crosshairs for speaking out against their candidate. Or the company president. Or anyone that they like.

It's easy to say "we don't want our content associated with someone who uses racial slurs" - how long until corporations start mass-censoring content from creators who don't like their games?

You guys gotta think in the broader scale of things. The DMCA should check into a battered women's shelter with all the corporations that abuse it. It wasn't made as a censoring tool to use impulsively against people you dislike, it was to protect intellectual property.

What if I made a Youtube channel that talks about games that I don't like? The companies behind those games can simply go through and flag all my videos because it's bad PR and they "don't want to be associated with that." Is that really what you want?

I would still say they have the right to take down the video then, because well, that is how the law works. I would think less of the company though and hopefully it will create a PR scandal for them so others don't do the same.

Also, these companies already have these rights at the moment. There is a reason they don't use them as much. Because you don't want to make the wrong headlines.

As for your Youtube channel, it does not work that way. Reviews and criticism fall under fair use. And you can make those videos without showing how you play the whole game. Using some material from a copyrighted work for review purposes has been done for ages and has nothing to do with the current discussion.

It's like no one on GAF thinks past the point of the next thread they read. Ya'll support censorship like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Just because it's technically legal doesn't mean that it's OK to make a political statement by using it.

This is not censorship. Please look up what censorship actually is.

_You_ think this through. History has shown that once the ability to censor becomes acceptable, it will only snowball from there. At no point has any entity given up the power to control what is out there.

Think this through.

"Please give the racists their room, because otherwise it might snowball to... something I guess."

 

[Sai-kun]

_You_ think this through. History has shown that once the ability to censor becomes acceptable, it will only snowball from there. At no point has any entity given up the power to control what is out there.

Think this through.

if 'censorship' means people actually face some consequences for calling someone a fucking nigger then sign me up for that i guess

 

[Dierce]

Racist snowflakes being triggered by this one developer... what a bunch of cowards. We should start labeling them White Justice Warriors and make their intentions even clearer.