Pewdiepie uses racial slur on livestream of PUBG, Firewatch dev files DMCA

[Muffinmaddness]

In some minor tech news ( as its kinda relates to youtube/twitch 

LINK = PCgamer.com link

Pewdiepie used a racial slur while livestreaming PUBG, as a direct reaction to this Sean Vanaman, Co-founder of Campo Santo creators of the game "firewatch"  (good game btw) 
posted on twitter that he would be filing DMCA take downs on pewd's videos of their games. 
Do you agree?  

Are creators now able to retroactively remove content of other channels and risk legal action, because they don't like something the host said (has happened with sponsorship's I know).

 
Would like to hear your guys/girls thoughts on this... I hate pewd's personally but I dont like that kind of content, but I think a DMCA is abit of a streach removing permision AFTER the fact ( reminds me of that rape thing that happened awhile ago, wheres some extreme feminists were wanting to take back consent after the fact)

(To save you clicking) 

QUOTED FROM PCGAMER

YouTuber PewDiePie – who lost lucrative partnerships with Disney and YouTube earlier this year due to an anti-Semitic video – has used a racial slur during a new livestream. The wealthy (and regrettably influential) personality uttered the slur during a livestream of PUBG, and while it has attracted condemnation online, Campo Santo co-founder Sean Vanaman has indicated he will take further action.

 

"We're filing a DMCA takedown of PewDiePie's Firewatch content and any future Campo Santo games," Vanaman wrote on Twitter. "There is a bit of leeway you have to have with the internet when [you] wake up every day and make video games. There's also a breaking point."

He continued: "I am sick of this child getting more and more chances to make money off of what we make. He's worse than a closeted racist: he's a propagator of despicable garbage that does real damage to the culture around this industry."

Vanaman made a call out to other developers to take direct action against the likes of PewDiePie. "I'd urge other developers & will be reaching out to folks much larger than us to cut him off from the content that has made him a millionaire. Furthermore, we're complicit: I'm sure we've made money off of the 5.7M views that video has and that's something for us to think about."

At the time of writing, PewDiePie's lengthy Firewatch playthrough has been removed from YouTube, though Kotaku reports it had been viewed 5.7 million times already.

Here is the clip, thanks to @TorqueS
Warning some users may find this offensive ( and if you do...yeah.....)

https://oddshot.tv/s/g_05U6

 

Video of copywrite attorney Leonard French giving his thoughts on the matter  ( thanks to @Energycore for directing me to it )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhn6yrNzM3M
 

 

 

 

Sean Vanaman's twitter reads as follows 

[Shimejii]

All i hear is Boo hoo he said something. Seems like a super white knight scenario, but oh well.

[manikyath]

here's the thing..

 

"Digital Millennium Copyright Act"

 

if pewds broke copyright, so did everyone else making a video of PUBG. there's probably a whole host of other things they can pull up to make his life difficult however.

[TheRandomness]

Oh no someone got offended I guess. 

[Gofspar]

mfw people act like this isnt screamed a million times in pub g.

[mr moose]

I think it's fair if a company doesn't want their brand associated with certain commentary or ideals.  Does this mean pewdiepie did something illegal?  most likely not, although defamation by association hasn't been tried before in a court as far as I know so who knows where this could go if they are serious.

[D13H4RD]

And there goes another developer off my watchlist.

 

Not because he threatened PewDiePie. I honestly don’t care much for him, but moreso in his intentions to use the DMCA to issue a takedown that isn’t actually for a copyright issue.

 

Happens far too many times.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Gofspar said:

mfw people act like this isnt screamed a million times in pub g.

In any online multiplayer game really.

 

Still he should know better with the amount of fame and attention he gets. 

[HKZeroFive]

Hmm...

 

[Mooshi]

I'm sorry, I want a fresh batch of fries. These are over salted.

[SCHISCHKA]

i dont think iDMCA can be applied here. There should be protections for derivative, satire, and educational work.

Pewdiepie is an adult with the maturity of a child, hence his youtube popularity. He is going to get what he gets.

[ArduinoBen]

wait i didnt read the post well.

[Muffinmaddness]

4 minutes ago, ArduinoBen said:

wait i didnt read the post well.

Sorry, i'm not used to posting news topics, what can I do to clear it up a little for you? 

[RumSwift]

Like, I feel people are going out of their way to target this kid. I understand that he says this shit but so does everyone else. 

 

It's becoming one rule for one and not others. 

[AlTech]

This is blatant abuse of DMCA. Developers have no right to abuse the law to suit their own agenda.

[mr moose]

40 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

And there goes another developer off my watchlist.

 

Not because he threatened PewDiePie. I honestly don’t care much for him, but moreso in his intentions to use the DMCA to issue a takedown that isn’t actually for a copyright issue.

 

Happens far too many times.

 

21 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

This is blatant abuse of DMCA. Developers have no right to abuse the law to suit their own agenda.

 

Actually, technically it's not abuse,  It's their copyright and they can decide exactly who gets to use it,  Fair use has stipulations that must be taken into consideration before you can use it without permission, and two of them are:

 

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 

For point 4. the owner can argue that it does due to the association of the accompanying commentary. As I said before, this hasn't been tried in a court as far as I know, however given the fact that it is largely upto a copyright holder to decide who gets to use their material outside of fair use (and DMCA stipulated exemptions) this is not abuse.

 

EDIT: also interesting to note that license agreements can (and have in precedent) superseded fair use laws.  So if there is a term in the EULA for this, then it is possible that pewdiepie clicked away his right to stream said content when he started making comments the dev. doesn't want to be associated with.

[Misanthrope]

I have been told that this is just part of gaming culture now.

 

On a related note, is this just part of stand up comedy culture now (viewer discretion if you watch this link)

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Misanthrope]

59 minutes ago, manikyath said:

here's the thing..

 

"Digital Millennium Copyright Act"

 

if pewds broke copyright, so did everyone else making a video of PUBG. there's probably a whole host of other things they can pull up to make his life difficult however.

The alarming part is that he basically said "Streaming is not legal, we just let it go but for him we will not"

 

Basically I think streaming should be considered transformative but if a case like this makes it to a jury it will be hard for them not to see Felix's 4 and 5 hour videos to be really transformative enough just because of the length. This is not isolated to just him of course but there's legal precedent as to the guidelines of what's considered fair use as in what percentage of the original material you can use before it's not considered just "fair use" because you give away too much of the original.

 

Game streaming also different from using music clips on a remix since well, you're not really modding the game (Well most non-Skyrim streamers anyway) so it's not inherently transformative if you're using it as intended. You're providing commentary but again some streamers do not. Closest analogy is MST3K and riff tracks but game streaming again still has unique differences.

 

For a far more educated take here's what Leonard French has to say, though he mostly focuses on the context of suddenly withdrawing the right but if it goes to court it would probably turn into "Is game streaming fair use?" kind of deal:

 

 

[Prysin]

well, if they think he is using their product in a immoral or unethical way, or using it to propagate hate speech. THEN BAN HIS ASS AND ASK FOR DEMONETIZATION OF HIS PUBG VIDS.

 

this boycotting shit is such BS.

 

Also, what the fuck did he say?

[TorqueS]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Also, what the fuck did he say?

This is the question that stands on everyone's lips.

He might've spewed "A nigger". Oh my god...he's racist oooh.

 

You know...I am growing tired of this bullcrap drama that happens every once in a while...copyright strikes and other nonesense that should really not exist.

 

[vorticalbox]

1 hour ago, TheRandomness said:

Oh no someone got offended I guess. 

[TorqueS]

Btw...this is the part.

https://oddshot.tv/s/g_05U6

[Energycore]

Fixed for Dark Theme

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The alarming part is that he basically said "Streaming is not legal, we just let it go but for him we will not"

 

But that's exactly their right as copyright owners, they get to decide who can use it and who can't.    

 

Whether we like what Sean is doing or not, he isn't exactly showing favoritism or abusing laws.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But that's exactly their right as copyright owners, they get to decide who is can use it and who can't.    

 

Whether we like what Sean is doing or not, he isn't exactly showing favoritism or abusing laws.

Not for fair use, just for regular licensing. They're assuming that they provide free, no questions asked licensing to anyone who wants to stream when the argument is that no permission is needed if it counts as fair use by nature of being transformative.

 

As I said game streaming probably gets to the very edge of what's truly fair use and is just as likely to be considered over said edge if it makes it to court. But we'll see. So yes technically correct but there's still another argument that could potentially be made.