Support NeoGAF

[lingpanda]

Freedom of Speech in the US only applies to the US government (you can criticize the government without fear of being imprisoned or executed). It has nothing to do with private businesses (YouTube can ban whoever they want) and doesn't give permission to break other laws (you can't break copyright and claim freedom of speech to try to get out of trouble).

I knew this yet forgot about it. Thanks. What about from a consumer protection side of things?

 

[Strazyplus]

I do not believe using DMCA to take away a persons videos because you dislike them is the correct course of action or lawful to do.

Every time I hear about DMCA is often of it being abused, and now being used the same way on someone 'we' dislike and it's now okay?

Yikes. This is a really really bad idea. Didn't H3H3 just win a fair use legal battle? IF shit gets dirty, Firewatch devs have nothing to stand on here. We can all be upset with Pewdiepie, but these devs are not allowed to DMCA claim because they're upset with him.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Moving this post over from the other thread when I saw the discussion had been moved:

Doesn't mean you should be using the DMCA. Is it fair use when you like them but copyright infringement when you don't?

LP videos like the ones done by PDP are almost assuredly not fair use and probably are copyright infringement 90% of the time or more. However, in cases where the infringement is having a beneficial effect on both parties, the owners of that copyright are free to selectively enforce their copyright as they please.

If I were to post some movie on Youtube, a small film owned by a private individual, that's copyright infringement if I didn't get permission to do so. There are potential transformative uses of the movie that could be considered fair use, but this case specifically isn't that, it's just me posting the movie in full onto Youtube. If it turns out that the guy who owns the copyright doesn't actually mind the movie being on Youtube, he's welcome to ignore the copyright infringement violation and let it live. If he decides to do that, and then a month later I say "That guy who owns that film is a grade-A moron", the owner of the copyright is free to change his mind and file a DMCA takedown of his movie that I posted.

Copyright is not like trademark where you can't selectively enforce those rights. You're welcome to enforce your copyright as selectively as you wish. Pointing to other people against whom DMCA strikes have not been filed isn't a defense for why your specific posting doesn't actually violate their copyright.

The reality of Let's Plays right now is that most of them are illegal and if the developers and publishers wanted to push, they could probably have most of them shut down. That they remain up isn't evidence that they're legal, but that the publishers and developers have their own motives for why they don't need to pursue that battle at this particular moment.

 

[Brakke]

I guess I'm defining virtue signalling differently here- by how I generally see the term defined being legitimately against a thing and virtue signalling against said thing aren't mutually exclusive. I'm sure they legitimately think that Pewdiepie's a shithead, and if they had simply said "yeah fuck that guy" that would be one thing, but going out of their way to declare that they're going to DMCA him (which they knew full well would generate controversy and thus attention for their company/game) is pretty clear into the zone of what I'd call virtue signalling. It's the difference between expressing an opinion and expressing your opinion in a way that ensures said expression will generate attention.

This is a worthless distinction. If Campo honestly believe this opinion is worth expressing, then of course they'd honestly care about expressing it in a way that generates attention. That's *leadership*.

 

[ZealousD]

Virtually none of the Let's Play videos meet the standards of Fair Use. That's part of the problem. Fair Use is decided based on a set of issues, including whether the content is educational or commercial, how much of the content is used, whether the content adds value, and whether the content could effect sales of the original. Most Let's Plays fail under three of the four categories by using the entire game, making money off it, and potentially diminishing sales by revealing the entirety of the content.

The DMCA is a blunt, ugly tool, and Google's handling of it makes it even worse, but if one of these ever gets to an actual court, the Let's Players are almost certainly going to lose.

That hasn't happened largely because Let's Plays are treated like free advertisement by a lot of places, and they aren't willing to shut down the attention, or upset their fans over it, but neither of those have to do with the actual law.

If companies are consistently letting Lets Players off the hook, isn't that establishing a precedent that IP holders generally don't see the harm in these sorts of works, therefore making it more likely that Lets Play content constitutes Fair Use?

 

[liezryou]

I do not believe using DMCA to take away a persons videos because you dislike them is the correct course of action or lawful to do.

Every time I hear about DMCA is often of it being abused, and now being used the same way on someone 'we' dislike and it's now okay?

Are you aware of some super secretive law that everyone else is not? Let's plays are copyright infringement in the vast majority of cases. Your opinion =/= the law. It is completely within the rights of the copyright holder to selectively enforce their copyright as they see fit.

 

[nicoga3000]

I do not believe using DMCA to take away a persons videos because you dislike them is the correct course of action or lawful to do.

Every time I hear about DMCA is often of it being abused, and now being used the same way on someone 'we' dislike and it's now okay?

I'm legitimately curious about the legality here. I'd Let's Play videos are not Fair Use...They would have to go and claim against ALL Let's Play videos for Firewatch, right?

I'm fine with the devs wanting to distance themselves from PDP, but these claims don't seem like the answer.

This is all such uncharted territory as a whole (except the H3H3 case I mentioned), so whatever happens (if anything, which I suspect this whole thing will explode for a few days and then go away like last time) will be fascinating.

E: So you can choose to enforce copyright for a LP video months and months after the fact because you don't like the person who did a LP of your game anymore? Will that hold water legally? Legit question because I have no idea about this shit.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

No.
Private companies don't need to give you a platform.

The DMCA is a law.

It's one thing for YT to enforce this themselves on their own accord, it's another for it to be enforced by writ of law.

 

[Timeaisis]

You can't make special exceptions. Either you are for open streaming (read: fair use) or not. But you have to be consistent, imo.

Yes, the steamer is a dick and good on Campo for calling it out, I just don't feel like they have a argument to stand on here with regards to DCMA. Unless... They are against streaming full stop. Which is a legitimate opinion.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

If companies are consistently letting Lets Players off the hook, isn't that establishing a precedent that IP holders generally don't see the harm in these sorts of works, therefore making it more likely that Lets Play content constitutes Fair Use?

i dont think that's how precedents work, i mean there's no legal case

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I personally don't care about "protecting the work" of copyright holders in the situations where that work is being displayed for discussion or criticism.

Up until this very specific situation no one on this board would have really supported DMCA because it is a bad.

The argument has always been that no one watches Let's Play or Reviews so they can "steal" the content from the creator and watch it without playing it. The argument has always been they watch those videos for the commentary and personality presenting it.

Regardless of today's situation, that's still my opinion. I would not then nor now consider giving YT or "content creators" the ability to control discourse like that or provide them with the dictatorial means by which to control "their" product, which was built to be public, consumed by the public, and ultimately belongs more to the meta/zeitgeist than it would ever belong to the "creator".

 

[James Scott]

I do not believe using DMCA to take away a persons videos because you dislike them is the correct course of action or lawful to do.

Every time I hear about DMCA is often of it being abused, and now being used the same way on someone 'we' dislike and it's now okay?

H3H3's video was a critique of that guy's video no matter how you feel about it.
Felix's videos are just him playing the games and being loud.

 

[Beefy]

You can't make special exceptions. Either you are for open streaming (read: fair use) or not. But you have to be consistent, imo.

Yes, the steamer is a dick and good on Campo for calling it out, I just don't feel like they have a argument to stand on here with regards to DCMA. Unless... They are against streaming full stop. Which is a legitimate opinion.

Lets Plays aren't under Fair Use.

What YT really needs to do is have something were companies can stop known racists/homophobes/paedos/scammers etc from playing their game.

 

[besada]

Has this been tested in actual court? I have seen arguments both ways, but as far as I know it has never been tested in court. And even if it was, it's going to depend a lot on the individual case and how the let's play was done. If it's someone just sitting there playing silently with no camera, it might be judged differently than someone that is parodying the game as it's being played. Saying with certainty that lets plays are or are not not fair use isn't really possible today. It also might depend on the nature of the game. Of course, it might also be difficult to explain this to a judge or jury that might not appreciate the intricacies of whether or not let's plays of Street Fighter V are transformative but Telltale games are not.

I suspect most of them are violations of fair use but some of them may not be.

The issue is that I can't think of a single Fair Use case that allowed usage of the ENTIRE work for entertainment commercial gain. I've read a fair number of Fair Use cases, and I can't think of any with as many strikes out of the gate that were resolved to the satisfaction of the derivative work. If someone knows of a Fair Use case where the entirety of a fictional work was used for commercial purposes, I'd be interested in seeing it.

You can't make special exceptions. Either you are for open streaming (read: fair use) or not. But you have to be consistent, imo.

Yes, the steamer is a dick and good on Campo for calling it out, I just don't feel like they have a argument to stand on here with regards to DCMA. Unless... They are against streaming full stop. Which is a legitimate opinion.

You CAN make special exceptions. Unlike trademark, there is no obligation for a rights holder to enforce copyright, and they are allowed to enforce it unequally. The creator of a work has the right to choose how, where, and by whom a work is presented. You abrogate that right when you republish someone's work without their permission, but it's entirely up to the creator whether they'll pursue legal action. Lots of creators are fine with it if you aren't making money, but that's a gift from the rights holder, not something you are entitled to.

 

[FLAguy954]

I'm okay with this. I don't think Racists should be allowed to have platforms.

Racism isn't a "different viewpoint" or "political opinion". Same with Nazis and Genocide. There's no middle ground, there's no both sides, you're just a piece of shit if you're either one of those. People being subhuman or lessers because of their skin isn't something that's "up for debate" - it's just disgusting hate and bullshit.

They should be shut down at every opportunity and I hope more developers follow suit with issuing take downs against PDP and others like him.

This needs to be repeated.

 

[Nanashrew]

I think people are going to be quite surprised to find that you can be against abusive use of DMCAs while being for the use of DMCA to dissociate from a racist pieces of garbage who refuses to change.

Welcome to entertainment world buckos. Learn the rules or get burned. Any other medium he would have been fired and thrown on his ass never to work in the industry again. Yet here we are where we gotta debate this stuff in the game industry.

EDIT: At least Disney did the right thing and dumped him. And I just see the Firewatch devs as doing the same thing.

 

[Usobuko]

Here is Keemstar's answer to those tweets (attention, he cusses a little bit):

- https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/907017914083143680

That's because Asia, Africa and every non-white countries give too much power and influence to the dominant culture of the world, cemented further by the fact that social media are mostly dominated by American companies.

It won't be so bad if the dominant culture isn't consisting of a significant amount of white edgelords who think dehumanizing an entire race is acceptable and fears no repercussion.

 

[Aaron]

You can't make special exceptions. Either you are for open streaming (read: fair use) or not. But you have to be consistent, imo.

Why? Because I seriously doubt you do this for most aspects of your life. Say someone asks to borrow a book from you, and you say yes. Are you now duty bound to allow to borrow the book that asks for it? Of course not. You judge situations on a case by case basis because you operate in the realm of reality, and not some artificial construct where there's a sharp divide between right and wrong.

 

[Armaros]

The issue is that I can't think of a single Fair Use case that allowed usage of the ENTIRE work for entertainment commercial gain. I've read a fair number of Fair Use cases, and I can't think of any with as many strikes out of the gate that were resolved to the satisfaction of the derivative work. If someone knows of a Fair Use case where the entirety of a fictional work was used for commercial purposes, I'd be interested in seeing it.



You CAN make special exceptions. Unlike trademark, there is no obligation for a rights holder to enforce copyright, and they are allowed to enforce it unequally. The creator of a work has the right to choose how, where, and by whom a work is presented. You abrogate that right when you republish someone's work without their permission, but it's entirely up to the creator whether they'll pursue legal action. Lots of creators are fine with it if you aren't making money, but that's a gift from the rights holder, not something you are entitled to.

Like if that was how Fair Use works, then Movie pirates, could just record themselves talking over the entire movie and boom, Fair use.

And yet they cant, and they play hide and seek on the various video platforms.

And Parody commentary movie tracks cant package them directly on top of the movie, iirc, they have make them a separate audio file that you play along the movie.

 

[James Scott]

Do you still lose your channel at 3 strikes or am I thinking of something else?
Think anyone else will give it a try if successful?

 

[Nanashrew]

The thing about being a Let's Player is that while it is your new found business making you the boss of your own content, you still have bosses like YouTube and the game companies that let you play their games.

You have to play by their rules. The more you piss them off or do things that go against morals of a company (like not wanting to associate with hate speech, slurs, or nazism) the less benefits you're going to get from them and they will dissociate from you any way they see fit. That is what we've been seeing with PDP for awhile that it almost feels self destructive.

 

[benicillin]

The thing about being a Let's Player is that while it is your new found business making you the boss of your own content, you still have bosses like YouTube and the game companies that let you play their games.

You have to play by their rules. The more you piss them off or do things that go against morals of a company like not wanting to associate with hate speech, slurs, or nazism, the less benefits you're going to get from them and they will dissociate from you any way they see fit. That is what we've been seeing with PDP for awhile that it almost feels self destructive.

Being a professional Let's Player is basically building a castle on a foundation of sand. It's a really pretty castle...for now.

 

[Renmyra]

Do you still lose your channel at 3 strikes or am I thinking of something else?
Think anyone else will give it a try if successful?

I'm sure the biggest youtuber on earth has some leeway when it comes to channel strikes...

 

[BBboy20]

: The Debate.

 

[firehawk12]

Was it wrong for the tiki torches company to come out and say they don't support white supremacy after Charlottesville? Or was that suppressing their free speech?

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

E: So you can choose to enforce copyright for a LP video months and months after the fact because you don't like the person who did a LP of your game anymore? Will that hold water legally? Legit question because I have no idea about this shit.

You can't take down a video because you don't like someone. But you are more than welcome to ignore an instance of copyright infringement because you like someone and not ignore another instance of copyright infringement because you don't like that person.

And to issuing a takedown long after posting, that's inherently a risk you take when you post material you don't own. If you want to protect yourself against the copyright owner turning fickle and changing their mind later, get express written consent to your use of their property. If you're going to post content that contains someone else's copyrighted material without having obtained explicit consent, you're indefinitely exposed to them changing their mind and beginning to take action against the infringement you committed.

 

[besada]

Like if that was how Fair Use works, then Movie pirates, could just record themselves talking over the entire movie and boom, Fair use.

And yet they cant, and they play hide and seek on the various video platforms.

And Parody commentary movie tracks cant package them directly on top of the movie, iirc, they have make them a separate audio file that you play along the movie.

And if you couldn't make distinctions about who was allowed to use your work, then everyone would have published JK Rowling. Every time King had a new book, it would be a race between publishers to see who could get the cheapest edition out first.

Instead, authors often demand a hardback release and hold back a paperback, a thing which would be blatantly illegal if copyright had not granted them a special monopoly on the use and sale of their work. Part of the problem in these conversations is how many people don't understand the basic principles of copyright in the first place, and if you don't understand those, you can't understand Fair Use doctrine, because they're inextricably tied.

 

[_____]

Think anyone else will give it a try if successful?

brands are all about public appearence these days, the whole thing about youtube losing a ton of advertiser money was mostly about advertisers appearing on abortion videos and other controversial subjects

this can be extended to "hey game dev, if you haven't dmca'd his content then do you support racism?" which is a bit of a stretch but still a valid one at heart. Considering how easy dmca'ing content is on yt, this'll probably be successful and will open up even more doors for other devs

can't wait to see the butthurt when it happens lmao

 

[Some Nobody]

.....I'd rather they didn't, and we just ruled Hate Speech to be completely unprotected by freedom of speech. Companies have too much power to begin with.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

If companies are consistently letting Lets Players off the hook, isn't that establishing a precedent that IP holders generally don't see the harm in these sorts of works, therefore making it more likely that Lets Play content constitutes Fair Use?

No. The only precedent are legal decisions.

At best, it maybe... could be argued by LPer, to serve as a sort of implied-in-fact contract because the conduct of both parties show a sort of informal agreement that each receives mutual consideration -- marketing for the dev and revenue for the LPer.

But that would have to be an argument, and a tough one. The dev could easily say that inaction does not equal implication or informality of anything -- e.g. music industry not suing Napster for a while in no way meant it was a implied-in-fact contract. They just didn't do it yet. Inaction does not automatically mean compliance or acceptance; it would be tough to argue inaction meant a implied-in-fact contract or consideration.

Especially in an emerging area (such as LPs being fair use), the judge would likely highly highly defer to explicit copyright and law, and dismiss 'inaction' as precisely a result of the case being emerging or disruptive -- in no way any sort of informal or implied-in-fact agreement.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

You can't make special exceptions. Either you are for open streaming (read: fair use) or not. But you have to be consistent, imo.

Fair use is literally a special exception every time it's invoked. If challenged in court, you have to prove that your work qualifies as fair use in every instance.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Sterling is absolutely right because as besada said the situation with let's plays and the like are at this point a topic that has not been before the courts because of the relationship the industry has had with what it considers "hypers" etc.

PDP may very well cause enough issues that this does end up before a court and suddenly everything will change quite rapidly. The days of Let's Plays etc. could end and you would see just like TV and movies with tightly restricted rules put into place.

Yep when children act like morons eventually over protective adults have to step in and make rules.

Youtube gamers took shit for granted and circled the wagon everytime "one of their own" got exposed as a racist. PDP, JonTron, etc... and now oops looks like folks like that are gonna cause gaming companies to reconsider the value of Let's Play as free advertisement. Whereas before Let's Players may not have technically had the legal right, game companies saw more value on leaving them be for free advertisement but now? Maybe that value isn't worth the hassle of having PDP spew racist shit while doing a Let's Play.

 

[excelsiorlef]

If companies are consistently letting Lets Players off the hook, isn't that establishing a precedent that IP holders generally don't see the harm in these sorts of works, therefore making it more likely that Lets Play content constitutes Fair Use?

No it just means no one has gone to court yet.

 

[GamerJM]

I feel like I don't really have the answers to this and I'm really unsure. I know that's kind of a nothing-answer but this doesn't seem like a very black-and-white issue to me and I haven't really made up my mind yet. That being said, what PewDiePie did was very much a black-and-white issue, and if developers do have the right to deny use of content then it's pretty objectively a good decision to block PDP from using their IP imo.

That being said it's easy to see a lot of ways in which something like this could go south. An example I just thought of is a YouTuber who is highly critical of a broken game, who then streams themselves playing the game, getting blocked by the developer for streaming. I don't really think that means that developers don't have the right to deny use of content but I do hope that if a situation like that arises then there would be enough of a backlash on social media and gaming forums that it would make sense for developers to never go after large streamers unless they did something obviously wrong like PDP.

 

[Schnozberry]

Fair use is literally a special exception every time it's invoked. If challenged in court, you have to prove that your work qualifies as fair use in every instance.

Yeah, the misinformation on Fair Use is astounding. People really think it's a catch all legal defense for using copyrighted content. Has there ever been an actual fair use case tried in a court over copyrighted video game content? I can't find one. I think most Youtubers have avoided court and accepted take down notices because nobody wants to kill the golden goose. They may complain about it, but no one actually wants to be the person that goes to trial, because a precedent in the wrong direction could kill monetized game streaming as we know it.

The fair use language is also fairly vague about what constitutes a meaningful contribution to a piece of copyrighted content. I'm not sure exaggerated reactions and witty banter over real game audio and game content would necessarily pass muster. It would really depend on the Judge.

 

[Nanashrew]

Been seeing YTers all day on Twitter either take a stance by either defending PDP (which are usually sleezbags), against his racism or just how PDP is ruining YouTube by "fucking with the money from his stupid antics."

 

[SMD]

I feel like I don't really have the answers to this and I'm really unsure. I know that's kind of a nothing-answer but this doesn't seem like a very black-and-white issue to me and I haven't really made up my mind yet. That being said, what PewDiePie did was very much a black-and-white issue, and if developers do have the right to deny use of content then it's pretty objectively a good decision to block PDP from using their IP imo.

That being said it's easy to see a lot of ways in which something like this could go south. An example I just thought of is a YouTuber who is highly critical of a broken game, who then streams themselves playing the game, getting blocked by the developer for streaming. I don't really think that means that developers have the right to deny use of content but I do hope that if a situation like that arises then there would be enough of a backlash on social media and gaming forums that it would make sense for developers to never go after large streamers unless they did something obviously wrong like PDP.

The answer is really simple. Youtube is giving a platform to hate speech and slurs, it should be on them to remove that platform.
I think Youtube and Twitter are reaching a point where if viable alternatives present themselves, people might start to jump ship. All it takes is a dedicated core of a community to move and eventually people follow. The infestation of bigotry is just too great to believe that either Youtube or Twitter are seriously dedicated to rooting it out.

 

[Schnozberry]

Been seeing YTers all day on Twitter either take a stance by either defending PDP (which are usually sleezbags), against his racism or just how PDP is ruining YouTube by "fucking with the money from his stupid antics."

It's hard to believe he had a Disney contract and easy money, and all he had to do to stay on the gravy train was not become a complete trash fire.

 

[ghostjoke]

Question: if PDP did counter this and won via YouTube and Campo Santo brought it to court, would Campo Santo have to start proving this isn't a "personal attack" i.e. would they have to send and DMCAs against other people using publicised racial slurs?

The idea of fair use stipulations being brought about by a dude's inability to go his life without saying that ONE WORD he's not allowed to (in any context let alone the one he did) doesn't seem ideal, especially with the degrees of separation and how it might scale upwards to larger companies, plus different countries laws surrounding hate speech. Not against Campo Santo stance, it just seems like than ideal for such an untested thing.

It's no different than The Boss telling republicans to stop using 'Born in the USA' at rallies.

Those were always hilarious.

"Vote for me and I will fix the problems facing America."

Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up

"America No. 1"

 

[GamerJM]

The answer is really simple. Youtube is giving a platform to hate speech and slurs, it should be on them to remove that platform.
I think Youtube and Twitter are reaching a point where if viable alternatives present themselves, people might start to jump ship. All it takes is a dedicated core of a community to move and eventually people follow. The infestation of bigotry is just too great to believe that either Youtube or Twitter are seriously dedicated to rooting it out.

Oh, I think YouTube should absolutely be the most responsible platform here. No disagreement about that. I think the fact that so many racists have found a platform on YouTube is horrible alone, but the fact that some of the biggest, most mainstream well-known YT names are diet racists at best and essentially full-fledged white supremacists at worst is fucking unbelievably shameful for the biggest videosharing platform on the internet.

But this topic isn't about that (if I understood the OP correctly), it's about whether or not developers have control over use of LPers and other video content makers to deny use of their IP or not. Not YouTube itself. Of course YouTube does, it's their platform.

 

[Pokemaniac]

I feel like I don't really have the answers to this and I'm really unsure. I know that's kind of a nothing-answer but this doesn't seem like a very black-and-white issue to me and I haven't really made up my mind yet. That being said, what PewDiePie did was very much a black-and-white issue, and if developers do have the right to deny use of content then it's pretty objectively a good decision to block PDP from using their IP imo.

That being said it's easy to see a lot of ways in which something like this could go south. An example I just thought of is a YouTuber who is highly critical of a broken game, who then streams themselves playing the game, getting blocked by the developer for streaming. I don't really think that means that developers have the right to deny use of content but I do hope that if a situation like that arises then there would be enough of a backlash on social media and gaming forums that it would make sense for developers to never go after large streamers unless they did something obviously wrong like PDP.

The thing is that actual critique of the content is generally going to have a strong fair use defense, while simple let's plays just kind of don't. Using copyright as a tool to suppress criticism is one of the things that fair use is specifically supposed to protect against.

 

[besada]

That being said it's easy to see a lot of ways in which something like this could go south. An example I just thought of is a YouTuber who is highly critical of a broken game, who then streams themselves playing the game, getting blocked by the developer for streaming. I don't really think that means that developers have the right to deny use of content but I do hope that if a situation like that arises then there would be enough of a backlash on social media and gaming forums that it would make sense for developers to never go after large streamers unless they did something obviously wrong like PDP.

The thing is, they couldn't stop you from doing a traditional review, using short snippets of the game. That IS Fair Use, and they'd lose in a court, because there's a lot of precedence for using clips of works for the purpose of reviewing or critiquing them. Think Siskel and Ebert's TV show, that showed scenes from a film for the purpose of reviews. Not only perfectly legal, but literally one of the reasons Fair Use exists.

Let's Players and publishers have been living in this sort of detente, where the publishers know that what's going on isn't Fair Use, but they ignore it mostly because it benefits them by spreading awareness of the game and keeps their fans -- many of whom just don't believe in protecting intellectual property -- happy. They've allowed their copyright to be infringed for their own benefit essentially, in the same way that Microsoft allowed Windows to be pirated for years, because it spread Windows all over the world. But the moment the publishers are losing more than they're gaining, the lawsuits are going to come. In Microsoft's case, they waited until pirates had saturated the planet, then came down on people with pirated copies, starting with businesses. Apple has tried, less successfully, to do the same thing with their DAW, Logic, which comes without any sort of DRM and is spread wide across the piracy sites.

Sometimes creators benefit by the theft of their work, so they allow it. But the law says they can change their mind whenever they want to, and enforce their copyright as selectively as they want.

 

[Nanashrew]

It's hard to believe he had a Disney contract and easy money, and all he had to do to stay on the gravy train was not become a complete trash fire.

He ruined a cozy deal. And some seem to feel he's taking them down with him because of his stupidity. Making YouTube feel less and less viable place to make money.

 

[GamerJM]

The thing is that actual critique of the content is generally going to have a strong fair use defense, while simple let's plays just kind of don't. Using copyright as a tool to suppress criticism is one of the things that fair use is specifically supposed to protect against.

My example wasn't actual critique though. It was someone who provides actual critique, then later streams himself playing the game to show evidence of its issues. I guess a more straighforward example would be someone who does a Let's Play with critical commentary in it. The developers try to send a takedown not on the basis that he's critical but on the basis that the Let's Play isn't offering sufficient commentary to be fair use.

Let's Players and publishers have been living in this sort of detente, where the publishers know that what's going on isn't Fair Use, but they ignore it mostly because it benefits them by spreading awareness of the game and keeps their fans

I guess a more open-ended question I'm wondering myself here is, though, is should this be the case? Like, if most people watch Let's Plays for the commentary of the LPer and not for the footage of the game itself, why shouldn't that be fair use? I understand the movie comparisons here, but games aren't movies, and LPs are inherently devoid of any interactivity the game offers.

 

[gblues]

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..

IANAL.

My understanding of US IP law is that Fair Use is not a guaranteed right. It is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement: "yes, it was infringing, but my usage falls into one of these categories."

It is, in its nature, a case-by-case thing and so I don't think using it to block PDP's videos automatically impacts anyone else's legal standing.

If they were to actually go to court, they might have a better case from a trademark perspective--brand damage et al.

I think in this case the DMCA takedown is simply the most expedient way to get PDP's videos of their games taken down. It's not even on the same plane as salty devs using DMCA to silence critics.

 

[fastballspecial]

Here is Keemstar's answer to those tweets (attention, he cusses a little bit):

- https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/907017914083143680

Who is this clown? What is he rambling about? I watched exactly ZERO videos of streamers or YouTube people playing Firewatch before I bought it. That's one hell of a shitty assumption to make.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

This PDP situation is the Troy Horse the industry has been waiting for.

 

[Anung]

Who is this clown? What is he rambling about? I watched exactly ZERO videos of streamers or YouTube people playing Firewatch before I bought it. That's one hell of a shitty assumption to make.

Plus if you look at it backwards these people wouldn't be able to make money screaming bullshit if said developers didn't actually y'know...make the game.

It can be a symbiotic relationship that developers benefit from but this asshole acting like it's a one way street is moronic.

 

[Pokemaniac]

My example wasn't actual critique though. It was someone who provides actual critique, then later streams himself playing the game to show evidence of its issues. I guess a more straighforward example would be someone who does a Let's Play with critical commentary in it. The developers try to send a takedown not on the basis that he's critical but on the basis that the Let's Play isn't offering sufficient commentary to be fair use.

I mean, there's the obvious solution of just not offering the criticism as random commentary inside a Let's Play. There's nothing really suppressing the criticism itself, and realistically, any attempt to address criticism like that would most likely Streisand Effect pretty hard, anyway.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This PDP situation is the Troy Horse the industry has been waiting for.

Yup and so many other gaming YouTubers are at fault too for rallying around this dude