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

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I'd imagine countless other streamers use words like these on a daily basis. Of course 2 camps will form for and against this shit. 

 

Its a win for the game and a win for pewdiepie. 

 

Might probably boost his channel to 60m as well. 

[Energycore]

Just now, 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.

As long as what Pewd is doing falls under the definition of Fair Use (critique is fair use for instance), the developer has no legal right to use the copyright law to take his videos down.

 

Whether or not something constitutes Fair Use is a bit complicated though, and it's unclear whether what Pewd did is indeed Fair Use. But if it is then the dev has no right to take his videos down whether they call the game a marvel or a cuntfest.

[hobobobo]

Whats strange to me is that developer of FIREWATCH decided to file the claim after watching a PUBG stream. So, if he was fine with the way his game was presented and is just baffled by the use of word nigger, whats his legal ground? Its like michael bay decides that he doesnt want anybody reviewing his transformer movies given they have called the cast of new ghostbusters cunts

[Teddy07]

1 hour ago, Muffinmaddness said:

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

1

well done. He just wants attention and achieved his goal with you spreading the word

[Energycore]

Just now, hobobobo said:

Whats strange to me is that developer of FIREWATCH decided to file the claim after watching a PUBG stream. So, if he was fine with the way his game was presented and is just baffled by the use of word nigger, whats his legal ground? Its like michael bay decides that he doesnt want anybody reviewing his transformer movies given they have called the cast of new ghostbusters cunts

If that's what it is, then there is no legal grounds and it's just a case of someone thinking that it's cool to be an asshole if you feel justified. Which is a problem that plagues the internet and especially team games like Dota

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

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.

 

19 minutes ago, Energycore said:

As long as what Pewd is doing falls under the definition of Fair Use (critique is fair use for instance), the developer has no legal right to use the copyright law to take his videos down.

 

Whether or not something constitutes Fair Use is a bit complicated though, and it's unclear whether what Pewd did is indeed Fair Use. But if it is then the dev has no right to take his videos down whether they call the game a marvel or a cuntfest.

 

See my earlier post,  Fair use is a defense not a mitigation strategy,    In many cases the simple fact PDP makes money from the stream makes it much harder for him to claim fair use as it isn't transformative (like a parody). In fact much of game streaming doesn't meet the requirements for protection under fair use, especially if their is a note in the EULA about it or they have streamed the same game more than once.  

 

 

 

[Muffinmaddness]

3 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

well done. He just wants attention and achieved his goal with you spreading the word

As opposed to the major publications commenting on it,...yeah I'm to blame here.

[hobobobo]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

If that's what it is, then there is no legal grounds and it's just a case of someone thinking that it's cool to be an asshole if you feel justified. Which is a problem that plagues the internet and especially team games like Dota

Well, in dota at least it all just for teh drama and soldi. Here a dude suddenly retrospectivly decided that he does not want his game to be presented by somebody coz, after the fact of his game getting marketing and pewds getting moneyz, he, for some reason, thinks the coverage and image of the game are gonna be damaged by a stream of an unrelated game. And coz its a DMCA claim, he doesnt even really claim all of the above, just "its mine you cant use it fuck off".

 

Its like the law for protection of the feelings of believers in Russia, easiest think to sue on, like a dude posted a pic on his blog saying "Fuck god" and got sued for not capitalizing god damn i need some vitamins to not die of this sudden mass empaphy for the meek

[Rupe]

If this guy thinks Pewdiepie is an actual racist then he is deluded. But he probably doesn't actually believe that, just someone who enjoys virtue signalling on top of his high horse. 

[Teddy07]

14 minutes ago, Muffinmaddness said:

As opposed to the major publications commenting on it,...yeah I'm to blame here.

fair point

[Guest]

Some edgelords here have to remember it's not that he said it, it's that he said it in a derogatory way. 

 

Now bombard me with 'you filthy SJW!' 

[PCGuy_5960]

As idubbbz said:

Spoiler

 

"All of you people out there who hold these words at such high esteem, you are giving it the power that you so desperately want it to not have."

 

And I bet that the people who wrote the articles have never played an online game in their lives because if they had they would know that, sometimes, if you are really into the game and someone annoys the fuck out of you, you want to insult him in the worst way possible. 

 

I'm not saying that what Pewdiepie said was right, but it really doesn't deserve all this media coverage

[Muffinmaddness]

9 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

fair point

The point of the post was not pewdie said this! news ( as I cant stand him) but the point of a dev of a different game claiming DMCA on videos because a streamer said the word *Nigger* on a stream of a different game by a different company, that's why I believe it to be news worthy ... let me be clear, I don't wish to promote pewd's (not like he needs me to) but the situation as far as im aware hasn't happened before or, hasn't happened to a prominent figure in streaming/youtube =) sorry if that wasnt clear by my posting of this. =) 

[Brehohn]

Lol... this is hilarious. He said it without thinking in the heat of the moment. A YouTuber says something pretty off the wall, obviously recognized it and said he didn't mean it like that, and yet someone still gets butt hurt. Let's see how many times in life someone has done something without thinking, like cops sometimes, and never get reprimanded for it. They should be happy they are making tons of money. Racial slurs and even offensive language is said on gaming ALL THE TIME. Get over yourselves CampoSanto. He wasn't even playing your damn game when he said it.

[Energycore]

Attorney Leonard French has chimed in on the issue, perhaps it's a good idea to add to the OP

 

[Energycore]

@Muffinmaddness if you paste a YouTube link (without BBCodes) it will automatically parse it and embed the video

[Muffinmaddness]

Just now, Energycore said:

@Muffinmaddness if you paste a YouTube link (without BBCodes) it will automatically parse it and embed the video

thank you im in a mess of chrome tabs here trying to find out how to do it

[Sauron]

Quote

he would be filing DMCA take downs on pewd's videos of their games. 
Do you agree?  

No, the DMCA has nothing to do with this. Either he could post the video to begin with (which he most likely could due to fair use) or he couldn't, in which case neither could every other youtuber that made a similar video - his other videos and streams are completely unrelated. Firewatch's devs would have all the rights to end a sponsorship deal with him, but not to DMCA his video.

54 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

-Fry quote-

While I like Stephen Fry as an actor I find this sort of statement very misguided, and he tends to make a lot of them. The phrase "I'm offended" has a very precise meaning and indicates that you're making a person uncomfortable and uneasy - it's a person's way of telling you that you're being a dick. Just because sometimes it can be used as a poor cop-out in a losing argument, you have to realize not everyone is here to win arguments. Many people are unaware of internet "street cred" and the array of nonsensical parameters that determine the "winner" of an argument. Before dismissing another person's point of view simply because they stated you're offending them, try to understand what exactly is offending them - is it your sensible argument, or the way you're shoving it in their face with a smug air of superiority and no respect for their point of view? Have you considered that these are human beings and are unlikely to instantly change their mind the moment you present a reasonable argument?

55 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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.

They really don't, there are fair use laws that allow the use of copyrighted work in transformative products (such as a commentary/gameplay video) without the holder's permission. Watching PDP play a game is hardly the same as playing it yourself - unless the game requires almost no user interaction, in which case it's better classified as a movie as far as I'm concerned.

[TidaLWaveZ]

Can't wait for the memes.

[Notional]

1 hour ago, vorticalbox said:

I love this quote. I can only recommend people watch John Cleese's video on the same topic here:

Seriously, stop this retarded nonsense. If you're offended, that's your problem. The end.

That being said ALL adults understand that any and all quotes are completely useless if you don't have context. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING! It's horrifying how few adults even realize this, but it's really not that difficult to understand.

 

As for the snowflake indie dev (why are all indie devs such idiots?). Legally he has no leg to stand on. I really don't understand why fake DMCA's aren't illegal with a proper fine.

[matrix07012]

 

[Urishima]

2 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

use the DMCA to issue a takedown that isn’t actually for a copyright issue.

Isn't fraudulent use of DMCA a felony?

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, hobobobo said:

Whats strange to me is that developer of FIREWATCH decided to file the claim after watching a PUBG stream. So, if he was fine with the way his game was presented and is just baffled by the use of word nigger, whats his legal ground? Its like michael bay decides that he doesnt want anybody reviewing his transformer movies given they have called the cast of new ghostbusters cunts

 

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

If that's what it is, then there is no legal grounds and it's just a case of someone thinking that it's cool to be an asshole if you feel justified. Which is a problem that plagues the internet and especially team games like Dota

Well, no, there is legal grounds.  Permission was granted with no specific terms agreed to.  As such the Dev can revoke that permission what what ever reasons or motivations as they see fit.

 

There is a seperate issue of 'Is streaming fair use?' and that is really up in the air with some companies making claims and being able to hold them without much trouble.  But this is really something to debate in the courts, it's far too murky and complicated to reliably argue from our perspective of 'Arm Chair Lawyers'.  However, if it's not fair use, and the dev gave permission for their content to be used and there's no contractual definition as to how long that permission will stand, then it can be revoked on a whim.

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

 

Well, no, there is legal grounds.  Permission was granted with no specific terms agreed to.  As such the Dev can revoke that permission what what ever reasons or motivations as they see fit.

 

There is a seperate issue of 'Is streaming fair use?' and that is really up in the air with some companies making claims and being able to hold them without much trouble.  But this is really something to debate in the courts, it's far too murky and complicated to reliably argue from our perspective of 'Arm Chair Lawyers'.  However, if it's not fair use, and the dev gave permission for their content to be used and there's no contractual definition as to how long that permission will stand, then it can be revoked on a whim.

Yes, you can revoke that permission on a whim, but only for the future content. Not retroactivly. They gave the video on their game the green light, they profited from it and, as i see it, there is zero ground. Streaming doesnt have to do anything with the question, its not like its PUBG devs who are unhappy, they would be in their right to limit the coverage of the game by undesirable actors.

 

The retardation with this case is strong, nothing to do with streaming, nothing to do with pubg, random nigger in the middle of a sentence and a dev of a game everybody forgotten exists suddenly decides that pdp is their brand representative and his image and actions have direct reprocussions on the product.

 

I guess the point im trying to get to is that you cant suddenly decide that an unrelated piece of content damages your product, unless the person producing the content is contractually a representative of your brand. I mean they give an explicit license to do whatever with their game. If they really want to pull it down they will have to find something in the youtube video of their game to back up the claim, and still they would be kinda on shaky grounds. There is no taksy-backsy in law

[AshleyAshes]

7 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Yes, you can revoke that permission on a whim, but only for the future content. Not retroactivly.

No, you can totally revoke it at will.  There was no agreement to allow copyrighted content to be used for perpetuity.  There would need to be an agreement for their content to be used perpetually or for a specific term.  None of this is set.  The agreement, even if just implied by granting permission for streamers in a comment on their site, can be revoked as the dev sees fit and they can have all previous uses taken down.

 

From a legal perspective, as much as you may not LIKE IT, it's a pretty straight forward issue.

 

Again, as to weather streaming is fair use or not, that is a HECK of a lot less straight forward and all the conjecture in the world is no replacement for testing it in the courts and setting legal precedents.  But for sure, a dev is absolutely in the right, assuming it's not fair use, to come in an have any usage of their content taken down, for whatever reasons they so choose.

 

Similarly, if I grant you permission to enter my home, the moment I decide to order you to exit my home and you do not immediately comply, you are trespassing.