PewDiePie, Firewatch and DMCA

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Sniper Team 4:
I've never liked that guy. He came across as a self-important prick that liked to stir up the pot because he could. And now it seems like his ego is finally catching up with him.
If that's the first word that pops into your head when you want to insult someone in a moment of rage, then you probably have some issues deeper down. And I don't really blame the makers of Firewatch wanting to distance themselves from someone like that. It's unfortunate that the only way they can do that though is by using the DMCA, because that is a very slippery slope.
I think it's like Jim Sterling said in his video on this thing: PPP is going to ruin it for the rest of YouTube because he can't keep is f-ing mouth shut.

I gotta imagine the forces at work are larger than this guy, regardless of the size of his audience. There are algorithms to be sold and all.

Exley97:

1. If you want to establish yourself as a member of the "I say the n-word occassionally but I'm definitely NOT racist so don't ever call me racist and if people are offended then that's THEIR problem" camp, then you go right ahead.

You know what, I might have actually said it.

Not that anyone would have heard it, because, as I've repeatedly stated, there's this wonderful gaming feature known as "single player" which is no small part of my having been a part of this hobby for some three decades now, so there was probably no one else around to hear it, let alone take issue with it.

Still makes me a dyed-in-the-wool white supremacist, I'm sure.

2. He's not "some vlogger." Once again, he's the biggest YouTuber/gaming media member on the planet. He should carry himself as such instead of resorting to the kind of behavior that he himself finds immature and objectionable.

The biggest youtuber on the planet still boils down to "some vlogger" as far as I'm concerned; and it seems to me it is precisely the way he has carried himself thus far that has put him in that precise spot.

From where I'm standing, he seems to be running his own affairs far better than I possibly could, so I really wouldn't presume to lecture him on what he should and what he shouldn't do.

3. Again, do you honestly believe he doesn't know what the word means?

No, I'm sure he does. I just think he's about as much at a loss as to why it should be considered a six-letter crime against humanity as I am.

Take "cunt", for one. It's about as taboo in American English as the word in question, yet it seems to me Brits are rather free with it, and I've been told by more than one Australian it amounts to punctuation down under (and in both cases, it's actually not gender-specific); yet neither country, it seems to me, has as a result laws against, I don't know, women getting any kind of education, or anything of the sort.

Just something to think about.

4. "Offense is taken, not given"? Really? That's interesting because I'm old enough to remember when you and other Gamergate supporters took EXTREME offense to folks writing that "'gamers' are over" and wailed about it incessantly for months. It's also the same movement that obsessed over every off-color Twitter comment that "aGGers" made in an effort to get some folks fired. So in light of your comment, Ogoid, I'm wondering -- how many times did you say "Hey fellow GGers, let's cool it and not overreact because OFFENSE IS TAKEN NOT GIVEN, GUYS"? Conversely, how many times did you slam aGGers for what you perceived to be offensive Tweets or articles? Where was your position that people are too easily offended back then?

I mean, sure, if you want to overlook all that charming stuff about "wailing hyperconsumers" and "obtuse shitlsingers" and "worse than ISIS" over the course of three years - made all the more precious coming from a bunch that turned out to be pathetically incompetent alcoholic losers (in the better cases) and possible sex offenders (in the worst) - very directly targeted at people having the temerity of demanding the former party conducted themselves with at least a shred of something resembling professionalism.

If you disregard that, it sure is the same thing as PewDiePie calling an imaginary non-black person incapable of hearing him, let alone caring a "nigger".

BeetleManiac:

Which is real easy for middle class white boys like you and me to say, considering we don't have to deal with systemic racism on a daily basis.

Camarada, deixa eu te explicar um bagulho aqui...

..."not American."

Dig?

Redryhno:
Where do you get off on saying that that ideal is actually just a secret racist desire?

Dude, I don't know you from Adam. I'm trying to figure out what you're about, and part of that is striking off the worst possibilities that so frequently crop up on the internet. You don't need to take it so personally.

So yes, I have.

That's all you needed to say.

As for mistakes on Felix's part, I'm simply offering up explanations that aren't "he's a massive racist shitbag, and you should feel fine with wishing for his death". And unsurprisingly, nobody wants those.

So you're deliberately ignoring that myself and others have said, "He's not racist, just a fool?" Or if not ignoring, are you not counting it for some reason? I don't understand.

Ogoid:
Camarada, deixa eu te explicar um bagulho aqui...

..."not American."

Dig?

So... Brazilians can't be hypocrites?

Firewatch devs must be trying real hard to sink their company. Steam reviews are already tanking hard. It's not smart to mess with someone who has 50 million subscribers on YouTube.

I could understand if he was playing their game, but as he wasn't, this just screams like another virtue-signalling circle jerk from the usual twitter users.

I thought claiming false DMCA's was something YouTube really frowned upon anyways? Can't they tell Camp Santo to fuck off, seeing as there's no real reason to take down the video besides "I don't like Pewdiepie"?

BeetleManiac:

So... Brazilians can't be hypocrites?

I don't know; can they?

Perhaps you could enlighten me, considering you're the one who obviously knows all about being a "middle class white boy" (insofar as any of those concepts actually apply) in Brazil.

Ogoid:
I don't know; can they?

Perhaps you could enlighten me, considering you're the one who obviously knows all about being a "middle class white boy" (insofar as any of those concepts actually apply) in Brazil.

Okay. I got those points wrong. That's on me. But while I now know and recognize you as Brazilian, you're still a hypocrite. You're perpetually aggrieved, incensed and enraged over nothing burgers that you choose to be offended by and choose to take personally. When this is pointed out to you, you engage in special pleading. That's not okay.

I don't imagine for a second that any of this criticism will get through to you and cause you to do some self-evaluation. You've made it very clear that you see yourself as some kind of martyr or something. I do feel though that it's important to call this shit out if for no other reason than to remind others that people can spot a hypocrite.

Whitbane:
Firewatch devs must be trying real hard to sink their company. Steam reviews are already tanking hard. It's not smart to mess with someone who has 50 million subscribers on YouTube.

I could understand if he was playing their game, but as he wasn't, this just screams like another virtue-signalling circle jerk from the usual twitter users.

I thought claiming false DMCA's was something YouTube really frowned upon anyways? Can't they tell Camp Santo to fuck off, seeing as there's no real reason to take down the video besides "I don't like Pewdiepie"?

Ahh, but it's not a "false" DMCA. Camp Santo does, in fact, own the game in question.

Or at least, that's what YouTube thinks. Legal grey area, let's plays.

BeetleManiac:

Redryhno:
Where do you get off on saying that that ideal is actually just a secret racist desire?

Dude, I don't know you from Adam. Stop taking everything so personally.

So yes, I have.

That's all you needed to say. The rest of it is just baggage.

As for mistakes on Felix's part, I'm simply offering up explanations that aren't "he's a massive racist shitbag, and you should feel fine with wishing for his death". And unsurprisingly, nobody wants those.

So you're deliberately ignoring that myself and others have said, "He's not racist, just a fool?"

Was there a point to all this? Or are you just trying to play the poor persecuted truth-teller for shiggles?

Deliberately? I acknowledged your points and even agreed that it could've been avoided...how is that ignoring you?

I've simply giving explanations why it wasn't as large of a cataclysm as people are acting as it was, and being told I actually just want to call people racist names because I'm a racist. Don't backpedal on that point, so quit with the sudden "I don't know you from Adam" crap. You've been called out on your own assumptions enough already, so just own it dude. Has nothing to do with taking it personally and all to do with, again, words having malice attributed to them instead of the person saying them.

You yourself said you have asked for permission(which is something I think is incredibly silly, but different conversation)
from your black friends and gotten it. The malice of the word is gone in those instances for you, how is it that difficult to see it as that? There are people getting their GEDs as naturalized citizens that still dip into their background for problem solving. Why is it such a stretch to believe that a word has a different connotation somewhere else that not thinking at the exact moment blurts it out? I'm just trying to get people to stop trying to crucify and brand someone a racist simply for saying it. Maybe have a bit more perspective on what it's like outside of their "middle-class white American boy" bubbles.

And exactly what difference would it make if I had never met a black guy in my life? What difference does it make that I have?

You've yet to answer a single one of my questions while constantly questioning everything I say if not outright dismissing it. So I'm going to ask for the last time: Explain to me where you're coming from.

Redryhno:
Deliberately? I acknowledged your points and even agreed that it could've been avoided...how is that ignoring you?

I've simply giving explanations why it wasn't as large of a cataclysm as people are acting as it was, and being told I actually just want to call people racist names because I'm a racist. Don't backpedal on that point, so quit with the sudden "I don't know you from Adam" crap. You've been called out on your own assumptions enough already, so just own it dude. Has nothing to do with taking it personally and all to do with, again, words having malice attributed to them instead of the person saying them.

I'm skeptical of you for the same reason I'm skeptical of anyone with too many, "I think/don't think X, but..." sentences. Over the course of this conversation, I know longer suspect malice from you. Just over-confidence. And that's not such a big deal, I'm guilty too on some issues.

You yourself said you have asked for permission(which is something I think is incredibly silly, but different conversation)
from your black friends and gotten it.

I never said that I asked for permission, only that it was given. You filled in that gap on your own.

The malice of the word is gone in those instances for you, how is it that difficult to see it as that? There are people getting their GEDs as naturalized citizens that still dip into their background for problem solving. Why is it such a stretch to believe that a word has a different connotation somewhere else that not thinking at the exact moment blurts it out? I'm just trying to get people to stop trying to crucify and brand someone a racist simply for saying it. Maybe have a bit more perspective on what it's like outside of their "middle-class white American boy" bubbles.

He's still a celebrity. He's still responsible for what comes out of his mouth. Like I said, I know a lot of really racist, awful things in other languages and cultures that I could shout for funzies. That doesn't make doing so a good idea. In fact, it would make me an asshole, because I know better. Kafir may not be a popular slur for black people stateside, but that doesn't make it okay for me to shout it on a Twitch stream.

And exactly what difference would it make if I had never met a black guy in my life? What difference does it make that I have?

It's a question of how the people this directly affects feel. My grandparents don't understand why people think blackface is offensive. The only black people they know are acquaintances. I admit I was being hyperbolic because I was stressed out at the time. That's on me. What I should have said is that everybody is prone to make some assumptions when it comes to race. It's what you do about those assumptions that matters.

You've yet to answer a single one of my questions while constantly questioning everything I say if not outright dismissing it. So I'm going to ask for the last time: Explain to me where you're coming from.

That's not a question, but okay. Tensions are running high right now because I have friends who are scared. Nazis are marching in the streets, the POTUS is a racist along with multiple people in his cabinet and inner circle, our police force is increasingly militarized, and internet outrage culture has provided a handy vehicle for a lot of horrible bigots to the point where some of them are able to go pro with it. That doesn't excuse me snapping, you're right. I just want to make clear that my anger is not self-righteous. This is anger in solidarity with people I care about who worry for their future in this country. Sometimes I miss the target.

Okay, contrary point: Campo Santo absolutely can and should use the DMCA to take down PDP. It is not spurious of a business to refuse to have anything to do with some dickhead, point out it is for the benefit of their business to sever ties with him, and use the DMCA to that effect.

As for the broader reaching consequences of this: I don't think there are any. Let's Plays have always occupied a very shaky legal ground, wherein they post hours of copyrighted material with added snarky commentary. The likes of Mystery Science Theatre had to buy the rights to do this sort of thing, however youtubers have been getting a free pass from devs to post as much of this stuff as they like, probably because the devs don't normally see any benefit to taking these people to task. For the most part, it is free advertising to millions of people. Devs by and large probably aren't going to see any reason to step in and stop these let's players, unless they literally do something really stupid and would otherwise go unimpeded unless you step in to have your say.

maninahat:
As for the broader reaching consequences of this: I don't think there are any.

At least, not unless Pewds takes this to court, which it doesn't appear he's at all interested in doing.

maninahat:
Okay, contrary point: Campo Santo absolutely can and should use the DMCA to take down PDP. It is not spurious of a business to refuse to have anything to do with some dickhead, point out it is for the benefit of their business to sever ties with him, and use the DMCA to that effect.

As for the broader reaching consequences of this: I don't think there are any. Let's Plays have always occupied a very shaky legal ground, wherein they post hours of copyrighted material with added snarky commentary. The likes of Mystery Science Theatre had to buy the rights to do this sort of thing, however youtubers have been getting a free pass from devs to post as much of this stuff as they like, probably because the devs don't normally see any benefit to taking these people to task. For the most part, it is free advertising to millions of people. Devs by and large probably aren't going to see any reason to step in and stop these let's players, unless they literally do something really stupid and would otherwise go unimpeded unless you step in to have your say.

So if the next shadow of mordor come out, and someone makes a negative lets play of it which leads to WB filing a DMCA against them, are you going to be okay with that?

maninahat:
The likes of Mystery Science Theatre had to buy the rights to do this sort of thing, however youtubers have been getting a free pass from devs to post as much of this stuff as they like, probably because the devs don't normally see any benefit to taking these people to task. For the most part, it is free advertising to millions of people. Devs by and large probably aren't going to see any reason to step in and stop these let's players, unless they literally do something really stupid and would otherwise go unimpeded unless you step in to have your say.

In this case, the dev's for Firewatch had an FAQ on their website saying that it was okay to both stream and monetize the game. They then tried to pull a takesies backsies because they evidently did not realize that saying "anyone can stream" meant ANYONE can stream.

Meiam:

maninahat:
Okay, contrary point: Campo Santo absolutely can and should use the DMCA to take down PDP. It is not spurious of a business to refuse to have anything to do with some dickhead, point out it is for the benefit of their business to sever ties with him, and use the DMCA to that effect.

As for the broader reaching consequences of this: I don't think there are any. Let's Plays have always occupied a very shaky legal ground, wherein they post hours of copyrighted material with added snarky commentary. The likes of Mystery Science Theatre had to buy the rights to do this sort of thing, however youtubers have been getting a free pass from devs to post as much of this stuff as they like, probably because the devs don't normally see any benefit to taking these people to task. For the most part, it is free advertising to millions of people. Devs by and large probably aren't going to see any reason to step in and stop these let's players, unless they literally do something really stupid and would otherwise go unimpeded unless you step in to have your say.

So if the next shadow of mordor come out, and someone makes a negative lets play of it which leads to WB filing a DMCA against them, are you going to be okay with that?

Yes.

If they used a DMCA to stop something like a review, parody or a critical analysis, I would most certainly have a problem. But if it is in the standard format of a lets play (such as an hour or so of continuous footage from the game) than I can absolutely accept that WB would have the right to take it down. I don't see it as being unreasonable to use a DMCA, even if it is merely as an excuse to quash negative criticism; as much as I like Lets Plays, they seem to be a blatant violation of copyright and we are just relying on developer complacency to get away with it.

jademunky:

maninahat:
The likes of Mystery Science Theatre had to buy the rights to do this sort of thing, however youtubers have been getting a free pass from devs to post as much of this stuff as they like, probably because the devs don't normally see any benefit to taking these people to task. For the most part, it is free advertising to millions of people. Devs by and large probably aren't going to see any reason to step in and stop these let's players, unless they literally do something really stupid and would otherwise go unimpeded unless you step in to have your say.

In this case, the dev's for Firewatch had an FAQ on their website saying that it was okay to both stream and monetize the game. They then tried to pull a takesies backsies because they evidently did not realize that saying "anyone can stream" meant ANYONE can stream.

On the contrary, a message on an FAQ is probably not enough to constitute a legally binding contract that says Santo has to let anyone do anything with their game forever. If they can give people permission to make money off of their game, they can also revoke that permission.

BeetleManiac:

maninahat:
As for the broader reaching consequences of this: I don't think there are any.

At least, not unless Pewds takes this to court, which it doesn't appear he's at all interested in doing.

Even if he did take it to court the case sets a precedent, that doesn't mean every other dev is going to go berserk and start DMCAing everything (as people here seem to be implying).

maninahat:

On the contrary, a message on an FAQ is probably not enough to constitute a legally binding contract that says Santo has to let anyone do anything with their game forever. If they can give people permission to make money off of their game, they can also revoke that permission.

Admittedly, an FAQ is most likely not legally binding and I doubt Swedish Cartman would even bother fighting it if it was. The thing is, it's not like he was making new Firewatch video's, his had allegedly been up for months. Revoking permission for future videos is one thing, retconning permission for previous videos which you explicitly said are acceptable is a little insane.

Obviously the DMCA is a dick move. I do wish that somebody like PewDiePie who has more money than he'll ever need and isn't bothered by the consequences at this point would challenge it, and set a legal precedent and thus clear all this stuff up.

Beyond that it's really a bit of a "Whole cares?" issue.

People say stupid shit on the internet all the time. It's one of those stupid issues where people who dislike the guy will pile on him regardless of how trivial it is to get so upset about somebody saying a word on the internet.

jademunky:

maninahat:

On the contrary, a message on an FAQ is probably not enough to constitute a legally binding contract that says Santo has to let anyone do anything with their game forever. If they can give people permission to make money off of their game, they can also revoke that permission.

Admittedly, an FAQ is most likely not legally binding and I doubt Swedish Cartman would even bother fighting it if it was. The thing is, it's not like he was making new Firewatch video's, his had allegedly been up for months. Revoking permission for future videos is one thing, retconning permission for previous videos which you explicitly said are acceptable is a little insane.

I think it was more for the principle than anything else. Santo were the first to point out PDP has already made his money off the videos, but the DCMA is them acting in the only capacity they had as a business to tell PDP they don't want anymore to do with him.

The Lunatic:
Obviously the DMCA is a dick move. I do wish that somebody like PewDiePie who has more money than he'll ever need and isn't bothered by the consequences at this point would challenge it, and set a legal precedent and thus clear all this stuff up.

Beyond that it's really a bit of a "Whole cares?" issue.

People say stupid shit on the internet all the time. It's one of those stupid issues where people who dislike the guy will pile on him regardless of how trivial it is to get so upset about somebody saying a word on the internet.

(Whilst other people tacitly excuse casual racism on the internet by insisting it is a trivial matter, thus no one should do anything about it).

altnameJag:
Ahh, but it's not a "false" DMCA. Camp Santo does, in fact, own the game in question.

Or at least, that's what YouTube thinks. Legal grey area, let's plays.

Campo Santo explicitly gives broad permission to stream their game and monetize the videos.

Campo Santo:

Can I stream this game? Can I make money off of those streams?
Yes. We love that people stream and share their experiences in the game. You are free to monetize your videos as well.

Even if you accept the idea that Let's Play videos are a redistribution of of the game and absolutely not a case of fair use, for it not to be a "false" DMCA, you have to accept the argument that someone can retroactively revoke a license given on a whim.

maninahat:

If they used a DMCA to stop something like a review, parody or a critical analysis, I would most certainly have a problem. But if it is in the standard format of a lets play (such as an hour or so of continuous footage from the game) than I can absolutely accept that WB would have the right to take it down. I don't see it as being unreasonable to use a DMCA, even if it is merely as an excuse to quash negative criticism; as much as I like Lets Plays, they seem to be a blatant violation of copyright and we are just relying on developer complacency to get away with it.

So what would grant them permission to remove negative commentary of the game is that it was done over gameplay footage? How much footage of something is permissible is the process of reviewing it or giving commentary?

maninahat:
If they can give people permission to make money off of their game, they can also revoke that permission.

Retroactively? If I say "You have the permission to do X with my IP", you are suggesting that later on if I decide I don't like you I can simply go "I retroactively revoke the permission I broadly gave for this one person for any reason or no reason at all."

maninahat:

(Whilst other people tacitly excuse casual racism on the internet by insisting it is a trivial matter, thus no one should do anything about it).

Well, context is important. Unless you consider stuff like that, there's not an awful lot to discuss. It's just assumptions and conjecture.

I mean, I can only speak from a European perspective, PewDiePie is also European, so, there may be some overlap here, or there may not. This isn't some defense.

But, for the most part, I really can't understand why people lose their shit so much about the utterance of a single word. There's no history with it in Europe, we have our own words, and obviously our history is very difference than those in America.

As such, we hear the N-word on the radio, we hear it on American TV shows, and there's never a discussion of it, there's never a "Here is why these people can say this, but, you can't". We know it's taboo, sure, but, there's absolutely no weight to it.

It's like finding out about the word "Mat" in Russian. It's a word so offensive it's banned from all Russian cinema. People lose their jobs for uttering the word and using it in public can actually get you arrested. But, to you and I, English speakers, with no history of Russian culture, there's absolutely nothing to it.

Is he aware it's offensive? Yeah, most likely, it would be naive to say otherwise. Is he aware how offensive it is to Americans? Probably not, honestly.

Ogoid:

Exley97:

1. If you want to establish yourself as a member of the "I say the n-word occassionally but I'm definitely NOT racist so don't ever call me racist and if people are offended then that's THEIR problem" camp, then you go right ahead.

You know what, I might have actually said it.

Not that anyone would have heard it, because, as I've repeatedly stated, there's this wonderful gaming feature known as "single player" which is no small part of my having been a part of this hobby for some three decades now, so there was probably no one else around to hear it, let alone take issue with it.

Still makes me a dyed-in-the-wool white supremacist, I'm sure.

2. He's not "some vlogger." Once again, he's the biggest YouTuber/gaming media member on the planet. He should carry himself as such instead of resorting to the kind of behavior that he himself finds immature and objectionable.

The biggest youtuber on the planet still boils down to "some vlogger" as far as I'm concerned; and it seems to me it is precisely the way he has carried himself thus far that has put him in that precise spot.

From where I'm standing, he seems to be running his own affairs far better than I possibly could, so I really wouldn't presume to lecture him on what he should and what he shouldn't do.

3. Again, do you honestly believe he doesn't know what the word means?

No, I'm sure he does. I just think he's about as much at a loss as to why it should be considered a six-letter crime against humanity as I am.

Take "cunt", for one. It's about as taboo in American English as the word in question, yet it seems to me Brits are rather free with it, and I've been told by more than one Australian it amounts to punctuation down under (and in both cases, it's actually not gender-specific); yet neither country, it seems to me, has as a result laws against, I don't know, women getting any kind of education, or anything of the sort.

Just something to think about.

4. "Offense is taken, not given"? Really? That's interesting because I'm old enough to remember when you and other Gamergate supporters took EXTREME offense to folks writing that "'gamers' are over" and wailed about it incessantly for months. It's also the same movement that obsessed over every off-color Twitter comment that "aGGers" made in an effort to get some folks fired. So in light of your comment, Ogoid, I'm wondering -- how many times did you say "Hey fellow GGers, let's cool it and not overreact because OFFENSE IS TAKEN NOT GIVEN, GUYS"? Conversely, how many times did you slam aGGers for what you perceived to be offensive Tweets or articles? Where was your position that people are too easily offended back then?

I mean, sure, if you want to overlook all that charming stuff about "wailing hyperconsumers" and "obtuse shitlsingers" and "worse than ISIS" over the course of three years - made all the more precious coming from a bunch that turned out to be pathetically incompetent alcoholic losers (in the better cases) and possible sex offenders (in the worst) - very directly targeted at people having the temerity of demanding the former party conducted themselves with at least a shred of something resembling professionalism.

If you disregard that, it sure is the same thing as PewDiePie calling an imaginary non-black person incapable of hearing him, let alone caring a "nigger".

1. I didn't claim you were a white supremacist or even racist. You're purposefully exaggerating my point, to what end I'm not sure. I'm claiming that based on what you've argued, you want the right to say the n-word and not be labeled racist EVER and anyone that takes offense to you saying the word is the problem, and not you. I'm arguing that people who use the n-word as a insult in gaming, regardless of the circumstances, are toxic and they're exactly the kind of element that major developers and publishers are trying to banish from online gaming. If you want to be on the opposing side of that, then that's on you.
2. I see. So only journalists in the gaming media need to act professional, but "some vlogger" need not?
3. Again, you're purposefully exaggerating. I didn't say it was a crime against humanity. I am arguing it's entirely worth criticising, and you apparently disagree because... the n-word may mean something entirely different in another country? That's it's no big deal in the UK like cunt is? I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing with the comparisons.
And finally...

4. What you wrote is an extremely long way of saying that YOU CHOSE to be offended by those articles and Tweets. Many people who consider themselves gamers were not offended (probably because they knew the insults in question were being directed at GG participants and not generic gamers). In fact, millions of gamers WERE NOT offended by statements, or at least weren't offended to the point where they became active participants in GG, and those that did are in the extreme minority of offended parties. I'm not arguing the two situations are the same. My point is that, according to your previous statement that "Offense is taken, not given," you made the choice to be offended by those articles and Tweets.

Schadrach:

altnameJag:
Ahh, but it's not a "false" DMCA. Camp Santo does, in fact, own the game in question.

Or at least, that's what YouTube thinks. Legal grey area, let's plays.

Campo Santo explicitly gives broad permission to stream their game and monetize the videos.

Campo Santo:

Can I stream this game? Can I make money off of those streams?
Yes. We love that people stream and share their experiences in the game. You are free to monetize your videos as well.

Even if you accept the idea that Let's Play videos are a redistribution of of the game and absolutely not a case of fair use, for it not to be a "false" DMCA, you have to accept the argument that someone can retroactively revoke a license given on a whim.

Retroactively? If I say "You have the permission to do X with my IP", you are suggesting that later on if I decide I don't like you I can simply go "I retroactively revoke the permission I broadly gave for this one person for any reason or no reason at all."

You can do exactly that, actually.

Especially with broad, non-legally binding statements.

...You know, it's kinda weird how people defending PDP are making it sound like he hasn't had years of experience and business dealings with American companies.

...and also seem to be overlooking the fact that, as far as I'm aware, he's never said it in one of his videos before. All these 'well it's got a different connotation in Europe' arguments would be a little weightier if he had a, well, history of saying it, but when it's an isolated incident...

Well, hardly going to blame the Journalists for his fuck up.

Wrex Brogan:
...You know, it's kinda weird how people defending PDP are making it sound like he hasn't had years of experience and business dealings with American companies.

...and also seem to be overlooking the fact that, as far as I'm aware, he's never said it in one of his videos before. All these 'well it's got a different connotation in Europe' arguments would be a little weightier if he had a, well, history of saying it, but when it's an isolated incident...

Well, hardly going to blame the Journalists for his fuck up.

Not defending him at all. I disagree with what he said, and he should know better.

But, should and do, are different things.

Your entire outrage hinges upon the idea that some random Swedish guy has the same context for a word as American liberals do. And that seems a very foolhardy thing to assume.

Also, the "He's never said it before!" thing falls.. Extremely flat when you're comparing an edited format such as youtube videos to live streaming, which is where the offense happened. I'm sure, like most people with some notion of American taboos, that he's aware it's not a word you should say, but, if you're doing it live, without editing, you have to realize that filter goes away.

People are treating it like he willfully and actively sought to offend American black people, when in reality, all he really did was use a word he shouldn't during a heated moment in a video game. It just seems very "boo hoo" to me. But, I don't share the same context for the word, to be fair.

The Lunatic:

Wrex Brogan:
...You know, it's kinda weird how people defending PDP are making it sound like he hasn't had years of experience and business dealings with American companies.

...and also seem to be overlooking the fact that, as far as I'm aware, he's never said it in one of his videos before. All these 'well it's got a different connotation in Europe' arguments would be a little weightier if he had a, well, history of saying it, but when it's an isolated incident...

Well, hardly going to blame the Journalists for his fuck up.

Not defending him at all. I disagree with what he said, and he should know better.

But, should and do, are different things.

Your entire outrage hinges upon the idea that some random Swedish guy has the same context for a word as American liberals do. And that seems a very foolhardy thing to assume.

Also, the "He's never said it before!" thing falls.. Extremely flat when you're comparing an edited format such as youtube videos to live streaming, which is where the offense happened. I'm sure, like most people with some notion of American taboos, that he's aware it's not a word you should say, but, if you're doing it live, without editing, you have to realize that filter goes away.

People are treating it like he willfully and actively sought to offend American black people, when in reality, all he really did was use a word he shouldn't during a heated moment in a video game. It just seems very "boo hoo" to me. But, I don't share the same context for the word, to be fair.

...'your outrage'?

EDIT: Sorry, 'Your entire outrage'. Ought to be specific there.

Meiam:

maninahat:
Okay, contrary point: Campo Santo absolutely can and should use the DMCA to take down PDP. It is not spurious of a business to refuse to have anything to do with some dickhead, point out it is for the benefit of their business to sever ties with him, and use the DMCA to that effect.

As for the broader reaching consequences of this: I don't think there are any. Let's Plays have always occupied a very shaky legal ground, wherein they post hours of copyrighted material with added snarky commentary. The likes of Mystery Science Theatre had to buy the rights to do this sort of thing, however youtubers have been getting a free pass from devs to post as much of this stuff as they like, probably because the devs don't normally see any benefit to taking these people to task. For the most part, it is free advertising to millions of people. Devs by and large probably aren't going to see any reason to step in and stop these let's players, unless they literally do something really stupid and would otherwise go unimpeded unless you step in to have your say.

So if the next shadow of mordor come out, and someone makes a negative lets play of it which leads to WB filing a DMCA against them, are you going to be okay with that?

I would. Or at least, I'd acknowledge that they've got full legal right too. It's a scummy move, but it's only 10 degrees off what we let them get away with already.

Now, somebody turns that footage into a review or critique that follows Fair Use doctrine and WB throws a DMCA at them, that's a different story.

Exley97:

2. I see. So only journalists in the gaming media need to act professional, but "some vlogger" need not?

Heavens to Betsy! Someone actually dared to suggest a stricter standard of conduct is expected of people calling themselves journalists and waving press credentials entitling them to a privileged status than of an honest-to-goodness clown, even the Biggest Clown in The World? What next, claiming the Pope ought to use less profanity in his public speeches than Dirty Joe Cockmeister in his stand-up routine at the topless buffet of the Bada Bing Club? Glad you set them straight in that a journalist is actually a lower form of commentator than a babbling comedy Swede. Unbelievable some people still don't know that.

Exley97:

4. What you wrote is an extremely long way of saying that YOU CHOSE to be offended by those articles and Tweets. Many people who consider themselves gamers were not offended (probably because they knew the insults in question were being directed at GG participants and not generic gamers). In fact, millions of gamers WERE NOT offended by statements, or at least weren't offended to the point where they became active participants in GG, and those that did are in the extreme minority of offended parties. I'm not arguing the two situations are the same. My point is that, according to your previous statement that "Offense is taken, not given," you made the choice to be offended by those articles and Tweets.

If that's the case, it was the correct choice. A massive campaign to reconfigure the entertainment industry in order to exclude people who lack social graces (what with their "mushroom hats" and standing in peasant lines) and so embarrass the hipster wannabes by mere association is arguably pretty fucking offensive. Meanwhile, it's not like PewDiePie deliberately set out to convince everyone on YouTube to collaborate in alienating any segment of the audience.

"Offense is taken, not given" is a bully's defense.

But hey, I wonder if "Punches are taken, not given" too? Would love to see that used as a defense in an assault legal case.

Saelune:
"Offense is taken, not given" is a bully's defense.

But hey, I wonder if "Punches are taken, not given" too? Would love to see that used as a defense in an assault legal case.

It's the "I'm just kicking air" argument, only people are trying to use it in all sincerity.

Also, now would be a good time to remember that gamers are among some of the most aggrieved and personally offended people out there. You only have to have lesbians in a game to annoy some of them - do they really want to start throwing around a "offense is taken, not given" argument?

Remember when PewDiePie was gonna delete his channel when he hit 15 million subscribers unless Youtube did something about the copyright issue on the platform? Then it turned out to be a throwaway account that he made?

Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

The Lunatic:

People are treating it like he willfully and actively sought to offend American black people, when in reality, all he really did was use a word he shouldn't during a heated moment in a video game. It just seems very "boo hoo" to me. But, I don't share the same context for the word, to be fair.

I wouldn't say "heated". Have you seen the clip? (Or the clip of when he almost said it again the next day)

He essentially just killed someone and they didn't die as fast as he would have liked (and the same happened the next day)

As someone who plays PUBG it was pretty much the most chill encounter I've ever seen/been a part of. And even then he didn't exclaim it like one would say fuck! or shit!. He specifically used it as a calm description of the person who had the audacity to not die in one shot.

This is no different than him using Nazis or antisemitism as jokes. (Which already cost him a YouTube red channel and a Disney partner ship) this wasn't a slip up, this is a continued trend of him using offensive terms for humor

maninahat:

Saelune:
"Offense is taken, not given" is a bully's defense.

But hey, I wonder if "Punches are taken, not given" too? Would love to see that used as a defense in an assault legal case.

It's the "I'm just kicking air" argument, only people are trying to use it in all sincerity.

Also, now would be a good time to remember that gamers are among some of the most aggrieved and personally offended people out there. You only have to have lesbians in a game to annoy some of them - do they really want to start throwing around a "offense is taken, not given" argument?

I think it is unfair to suggest gamers are more or less that way. Seems the same issue arises in film and science fiction writing and...everywhere else.

I think you try to insert diversity anywhere it will upset lots of people. Cause god forbid that after straight kiss number 11274727982739812739812737123710273917391273 that maybe I see something I can relate better to.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here