|
That tweet is actually the start of a whole thread where Vanaman defends himself the best he can. I still don't agree with him exploiting DMCA, but Vanaman makes an interesting point at the end that reveals a lot about where he's coming from. https://twitter.com/vanaman/status/906989938532524032 I gotta be honest, I can get behind the idea of filing a DMCA because the video offers nothing of additional value and only serves to boost the uploader's profile, which on YouTube can translate to money. But then you get to the thorny question of what constitutes "additional value," and whether it still counts when something you think is obnoxious is seen as comedy to a large subset of people. And then there's the fact that the video being removed presumably doesn't have the thing that offended you to begin with, prompting you to issue the removal. Then again, when the uploader in question is so deeply associated with hate speech like PDP is at this point, does that still matter? I hope Jim Sterling touches on this. I feel like he could go either way on this (though I expect he'll fall on the side of "Don't abuse DMCA because you don't like what someone said, you dick"), and I'll be nodding in agreement either way. DivisionPost fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Sep 11, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Yeah, while PewDiePie is a lovely person, that doesn't justify trying to exploit the DMCA to get his content removed. They even explicitly give permission for people to stream on their website. Official Firewatch Website Faq posted:Can I stream this game? Can I make money off of those streams?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
The discussion here is if it's ethical to take away that right from ONE specific streamer/channel. I mean, it is their IP and their content, so if they wanted it off the air it would be their prerrogative, but taking it down from a specific channel is a bit...spicier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Yeah, while PewDiePie is a lovely person, that doesn't justify trying to exploit the DMCA to get his content removed. But is that really a legally-binding contract? Like people are saying it's illegal for them to even use the DMCA at all or take any sort of action, simply based on that permission. The bigger question of whether or not they have any legal recourse over someone with views they don't approve of making money off of their content is of course far more complex. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
When it comes down to it, the legality of LP and streaming has never really been tested. How much control does a developer have over who can use their product? Who knows! Until this goes to court, possibly repeatedly, to establish precedent, no one can really say more than their personal opinion about how a bunch of actually kind of complex and contradictory laws interact. Well, I guess you can say whatever you want with whatever confidence you want, but it doesn't really mean poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
I think it's pretty daft that THIS is the point at which people start acting against Pewdiepie again. Apparently one racial slur is worse than literally all of his content especially post-Amnesia. Is it just the offensive nature on its own or is it due to the size of his platform plus the number of kids who watch his stuff? I kinda get the issue of when he paid those guys to put up that kill the Jews sign or whatever, since that actually blew back on the guys that took the money and did it as well, but he just said a word this time. It's no worse than most of the nonsense that comes out of his mouth. I'm not defending him, that clown's low effort trash content needs to be knocked down a few pegs, but why now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
There is, fortunately, some degree of recent legal precedent that might come into play, regarding a cartoon frog that's become a symbol of certain hate groups online. The creator of the frog recently won a copyright lawsuit that I think applied pretty broadly to uses of his creation in connection with the message those groups were using it for, but I don't know how tight the connection has to be between the frog and a specific meaning. I don't know whether this would cover, say, a Twitter account using the frog as an avatar and also posting hate speech without the frog. That's the sort of area we're talking about here - hate speech and copyrighted content existing separately in the same social media account, and the legality of banning the otherwise legal use of copyrighted content when the material that makes its use objectionable to the copyright holder is presented separately from the content itself. Fair Use is no less Fair Use based on the person who's using it. EDIT: And if the video with the objectionable content isn't even posted on his own channel, then I really don't think they have a chance on First Amendment grounds, unless they change their terms to explicitly require anyone using their content to get permission. Even then, the unresolved question of whether streaming gameplay footage is Fair Use will come into play, since that never requires permission from the copyright holder. Nidoking fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
I can't wait to watch the frogmen shitheels turn this into another MUH FREE SPEECH song and dance because someone's facing any kind of blowback whatsoever over using a slur.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
I mean, as far as the prevailing understanding of the law goes - and it's prevailing understanding because, as has been said, the law relating to streaming and LPs has never been tested - all streams and LPs are technically illegal, and continue to exist basically at the discretion of the copyright owners of the games involved, who, broadly, all a) can't be bothered or b) don't think it's in their interests to act on this law and take down all of these streams and LPs. The actual implementation of the processes that are adjacent to all of this aside - YouTube remains ever a trainwreck of functionality that skews all legal interactions hugely in the favour of assholes - Campo Santo are fully within their rights to do this, and YouTube et al will oblige within microseconds. Pewds could appeal, but YouTube will then pass it on to Campo Santo, who will of course insist, and that will be that. Past that point, the only option will be for him to lawyer up and file Kjellberg vs Campo Santo (which is a hell of a logistical proposition, btw) and then, gods help us, the fate of LP is going to hinge on a lawsuit over a man saying "friend of the family". No, legally speaking, there is not going to be much of a discussion here. The only real point of contention is going to be arguing over whether or not it is right in any kind of bigger picture, dare I say "free speech"-y sense, to selectively apply the DMCA in this way. I mean, the DMCA is conceptually a trainwreck, and nobody of any moral worth is on Pewds' side in this, so if we're gonna argue that this particular case is somehow a bad thing I guess the question is - what will be the consequences of this move beyond the individual takedown, considering that it basically is guaranteed not to impart any change on the existing legal landscape unless it is somehow challenged in court?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:I think it's pretty daft that THIS is the point at which people start acting against Pewdiepie again. Apparently one racial slur is worse than literally all of his content especially post-Amnesia. Is it just the offensive nature on its own or is it due to the size of his platform plus the number of kids who watch his stuff? Oh, people gave him a lot of poo poo for all that stuff. It's just that this one is literally the dude calling someone a friend of the family as a random insult, so he can't hide behind "comedy". Well, I guess some subforums might disagree, but that's the idea anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
There's also the fact that his reaction was basically "Oops, I forgot I was live" which implies that he is regularly like this and just suppresses it when he's doing his videos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Fedule posted:No, legally speaking, there is not going to be much of a discussion here. The only real point of contention is going to be arguing over whether or not it is right in any kind of bigger picture, dare I say "free speech"-y sense, to selectively apply the DMCA in this way. I mean, the DMCA is conceptually a trainwreck, and nobody of any moral worth is on Pewds' side in this, so if we're gonna argue that this particular case is somehow a bad thing I guess the question is - what will be the consequences of this move beyond the individual takedown, considering that it basically is guaranteed not to impart any change on the existing legal landscape unless it is somehow challenged in court?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
I'm okay with it. At least in this instance it is the proper copywrite holder. In this instance there is previous behavior that you can point to. Yes, I do believe that PDPs main demographic (litteral children) is a major factor. If a game develops doesn't want their game associated with someone who says the n word live on camera and makes jokes about THE Jews, then they can and should file the DMCA to make their position clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
My concern is it might set precedent for developers stopping people from hosting their games due to negative reviews/feedback or whatever other nonsense. We did have that whole thing between Jim Sterling and those guys who made terrible Steam games rather recently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:My concern is it might set precedent for developers stopping people from hosting their games due to negative reviews/feedback or whatever other nonsense. We did have that whole thing between Jim Sterling and those guys who made terrible Steam games rather recently. I was talking with a friend about this and he pointed out that Sterling was DMCA'd over reviews, which do have legal protections, vs. a Let's Play/playthrough, which is more of a grey area.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Again, though, this has the potential to set the dangerous (for us) precedent that Let's Plays are unquestionably illegal without express permission from the copyright holders of the games used. Nintendo has already shown that they're willing to pursue legal remedies for use of their first-party games, and Microsoft has also placed restrictions on use of their content including forbidding the use of the title of the game in the title of the "derived work" i.e. you can't call a thread or video "Let's Play Banjo-Kazooie". So far, I haven't heard of any company attempting to completely ban the use of their game footage outside the context of time-sensitive NDAs (such as Persona 5 videos that might spoil the later parts of the game or restrictions on publishing video of beta releases), but any company attempting to do so might have to argue their case in court to enforce it, and they're probably not willing to risk it. Once there's a handy citation to the decision in Kjellberg v. Campo Santo, their lawyers save a ton of money, and they might decide it's worth banning the use of their games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I was talking with a friend about this and he pointed out that Sterling was DMCA'd over reviews, which do have legal protections, vs. a Let's Play/playthrough, which is more of a grey area. It wasn't a review. Just a first impressions video, but the DigiHom guys kept insisting it was a review.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Kay Kessler posted:It wasn't a review. Just a first impressions video, but the DigiHom guys kept insisting it was a review. That gets into adjacent similarly murky waters in the difference between reviews, preview coverage, and short form LPs. Fair Use and videogaems
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Dias posted:The discussion here is if it's ethical to take away that right from ONE specific streamer/channel. I mean, it is their IP and their content, so if they wanted it off the air it would be their prerrogative, but taking it down from a specific channel is a bit...spicier. I'm looking at it like a business pulling a sponsorship from an athlete who's involved in domestic abuse or was caught on camera using racial slurs. Let's plays are by nature associated with the content they are showcasing, and if the creators don't want to be associated with a certain point of view then they should have some recourse to have it removed. Of course they could abuse this and file strikes against videos that portray their game unfavorably (and this absolutely happens), but that's why reviews are held to a different legal standard. No system is going to be perfect but I am in favor of its use in this case. It's one thing if he wasn't monetizing his videos, but he is making his living and building his brand off of other people's work. They face very real monetary consequences as a result of this association and they should have some ability to protect themselves. Cuveball Sliders fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Honestly when PDP had videos that didn't go over well because instead of previewing a game he focused on himself first I can see why wanting those down would be bad, but when it's something like this I'm totally for developers not wanting their games associated with this. Too me it's the exception to the rule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
A note to anyone streaming FractalSoftware games in the future: if we become aware of you saying anything positive about anime while talking over our product, we will be forced to shut you down. We can't allow that kind of toxic behaviour to be associated with our brand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
I wonder what that guy or guys who spent many hours making the PDP video game entertainment system feel like now Bhlaab, how would you feel if the mendrinkincoffee ever revealed themselves to be horrible racists
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
FractalSandwich posted:A note to anyone streaming FractalSoftware games in the future: if we become aware of you saying anything positive about anime while talking over our product, we will be forced to shut you down. We can't allow that kind of toxic behaviour to be associated with our brand. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:I wonder what that guy or guys who spent many hours making the PDP video game entertainment system feel like now My world view would be shattered if I found out three older white guys turned out to be racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Let's Play? More like... Let's Pray for all those who lost their lives on 9/11 🚩
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Mario is only like 23 he would have been in 4th grade when 9/11 happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
That is a strong 23.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Mario is only like 23 he would have been in 4th grade when 9/11 happened. You can't yet grow a mustache like that when you're 23. Source: personal experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
I'd like to remind everyone that Campo Santo have the option of contacting Pewdiepie to ask him to take down all of his videos with their content, rather than asserting that the very act of making those videos in the first place and posting them online was a violation of U.S. Copyright Law, which is what they're doing. Let's keep in mind that the DMCA is not a separate law from the copyright that prevents reproduction and sale of, say, entire books. It's simply a mechanism for allowing copyright holders to keep up with the technology that allows mass file-sharing of arbitrary amounts of data worldwide with little effort. DMCA didn't create any new offenses. It says that when such an offense happens on the Internet, where anonymity often prevents the service of the lawsuit mechanism and downloads can happen in seconds, the copyright holder can assert a violation and start a timeline for the takedown of the material without needing to name the violator, through the owner of the site where the material was posted. A DMCA filing has always said "The person who posted this has violated my copyright and I am willing to sue them if necessary." Youtube's implementation of that mechanism doesn't quite comply with the DMCA, but people are so used to it by now that many seem to think that Youtube's mechanism IS the DMCA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
So how hard is it to not say the n word
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:So how hard is it to not say the n word It's PewDiePie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Calaveron posted:So how hard is it to not say the n word Very hard if you make it a habit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Putty posted:Let's Play? More like... Let's Pray for all those who lost their lives on 9/11 🚩  + = Calaveron posted:So how hard is it to not say the n word We were wondering that too! So we brought in Jontron to shed some light on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
If this is the hill CampoSanto want to die on, fine. Any company that openly expresses the wish to abuse DMCAs is one I can get behind never legally supporting. I don't support Pewds saying the word, but there's a big difference between abusing the law (and going back on your own word given how Campo Santo give carte blanche on their website to stream or LP their games) and saying a racial slur. One's retarded and makes you look like a fool, the other's retarded and has grounds of being illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Do we know if they even contacted him to have the videos taken down, before firing the DMCA missile? It seems a tad disproportionate and abusive to go for copyright claims when they (publicly) announced the reason had nothing to do with infringement. Having their games simply removed from the channel (and presumably, any future games they make) seems like it'd be enough of a hit for that stupid blunder, considering the views this guy makes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
I would just ask them to be demonetized. That would be fair, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
GoneRampant posted:If this is the hill CampoSanto want to die on, fine. Any company that openly expresses the wish to abuse DMCAs is one I can get behind never legally supporting. I don't support Pewds saying the word, but there's a big difference between abusing the law (and going back on your own word given how Campo Santo give carte blanche on their website to stream or LP their games) and saying a racial slur. One's retarded and makes you look like a fool, the other's retarded and has grounds of being illegal. Ah yes choosing not to associate with a racist is just as bad as being a racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:Ah yes choosing not to associate with a racist is just as bad as being a racist. Thats for Youtube to do. Campo Santo's only proper actions should've been to blacklist him from receiving any further promo copies of their games, publicly denounce him and request he demonetise the videos. DMCA abuse is never ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Those darn racists win again by the legal binding contract of lettuce plaids
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
GoneRampant posted:If this is the hill CampoSanto want to die on, fine. Any company that openly expresses the wish to abuse DMCAs is one I can get behind never legally supporting. I don't support Pewds saying the word, but there's a big difference between abusing the law (and going back on your own word given how Campo Santo give carte blanche on their website to stream or LP their games) and saying a racial slur. One's retarded and makes you look like a fool, the other's retarded and has grounds of being illegal. This post is enough to convince me CampoSanto is totally right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:32
|
|
