JonnyDBrit
Member
Prompted by this thread, after one of the mods asked that any discussion of the topic title be taken elsewhere.
For those requiring a tl;dr, famed internet personality and youtuber Pewdiepie used what is colloquially referred to as the 'N-Word' during a stream in a bout of frustration with another player. Many have taken this as an act of racism, and further evidence towards PDP himself being racist; one group in particular are attempting to leverage what power they have to provide consequences for such:
The impetus is simple: The developers of Firewatch feel that, given Pewdiepie's behaviour and implicit beliefs, they should be able to revoke his ability to profit in any fashion from their creative endeavour, and even use such work to to generate even views. Many have welcomed this for introducing some kind of potential punishment for Pewdiepie's use of a racial slur, even if potentially for just the one game and other future productions of the studio. However, it also raised a more abstract issue: Should video game creators have such power to curate content, even if derived from their own, to begin with?
The premise, and concern, is such: If Campo Santo are lauded for using their copyright in this fashion, then it may legitimise - at least to platforms like Youtube - other developers and/or publishers doing the same for less altruistic reasoning. One attempted example of this can be seen in the actions of Digital Homicide, the now infamous developer that attempted to defame and sue Jim Sterling of the Jimquisition for his coverage of their various, usually regarded as quite poorly developed projects on Steam. While Digital Homicide's efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, some fear that larger corporate bodies with some actual competency to them - such as Warner Bros - might use such to try and threaten or coerce creators and critics into limiting or entirely avoiding overly negative coverage and perspectives, emboldened if an otherwise entirely commendable example legitimised the general principle of copyright holders being able to go 'No, you cannot use this', potentially in violation of 'Fair Use', whatever variation on that concept may be applicable to a person's country of origin. Others feel this is basically already the norm, so it might as well be done for something good for once.
So then, whether in the specific context of this one incident, the general principle, what should ideally happen, what you think will actually happen, or any other potential perspective, this thread exists to facilitate the discussion of such without further bogging down the thread reacting to PDP.
For those requiring a tl;dr, famed internet personality and youtuber Pewdiepie used what is colloquially referred to as the 'N-Word' during a stream in a bout of frustration with another player. Many have taken this as an act of racism, and further evidence towards PDP himself being racist; one group in particular are attempting to leverage what power they have to provide consequences for such:
The impetus is simple: The developers of Firewatch feel that, given Pewdiepie's behaviour and implicit beliefs, they should be able to revoke his ability to profit in any fashion from their creative endeavour, and even use such work to to generate even views. Many have welcomed this for introducing some kind of potential punishment for Pewdiepie's use of a racial slur, even if potentially for just the one game and other future productions of the studio. However, it also raised a more abstract issue: Should video game creators have such power to curate content, even if derived from their own, to begin with?
The premise, and concern, is such: If Campo Santo are lauded for using their copyright in this fashion, then it may legitimise - at least to platforms like Youtube - other developers and/or publishers doing the same for less altruistic reasoning. One attempted example of this can be seen in the actions of Digital Homicide, the now infamous developer that attempted to defame and sue Jim Sterling of the Jimquisition for his coverage of their various, usually regarded as quite poorly developed projects on Steam. While Digital Homicide's efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, some fear that larger corporate bodies with some actual competency to them - such as Warner Bros - might use such to try and threaten or coerce creators and critics into limiting or entirely avoiding overly negative coverage and perspectives, emboldened if an otherwise entirely commendable example legitimised the general principle of copyright holders being able to go 'No, you cannot use this', potentially in violation of 'Fair Use', whatever variation on that concept may be applicable to a person's country of origin. Others feel this is basically already the norm, so it might as well be done for something good for once.
So then, whether in the specific context of this one incident, the general principle, what should ideally happen, what you think will actually happen, or any other potential perspective, this thread exists to facilitate the discussion of such without further bogging down the thread reacting to PDP.
