About A Copyright Strike

About A Copyright Strike

(Visited 8 times, 1 visits today)

About The Author

You might be interested in

Comment (41)

  1. Felix handled the apology yesterday very well, and seeing that reasonable tone continue to address this grey area is really nice.

    Not gonna lie, I’m on Felix’s side on this one, and would be interested to see this go to court if Vanaman continues to be petty. Regardless on who *you* side with, it would lay down some much needed precedent on our newfangled technological era.

  2. Im pretty sure the people he was referring to when he mentioned other youtubers who have dealt with copyright issues before is total biscuit. And im pretty sure tb is on the side of the dev and not pewdiepies which is a real shame

  3. As stupid as Felix was for saying that, I’m not siding with the Firewatch dev on this – especially considering the actions he took.

    I find it incredibly malicious (and frankly more aggressive than saying a racist word) to abuse the DMCA system to try and destroy someone’s channel and career. The Firewatch guys *gave permission* to *anyone* to make videos of their game, and suddenly they’re revoking that for one single guy in an attempt to destroy him.

    He acts like he doesn’t want his game on his channel and doesn’t want his game to be associated with Pewdiepie or make him money, but the fact that he went straight to filing a DMCA takedown with no warning (after having a message giving permission to use his game in videos) tells me there’s more to it than that, and Sean had more malicious motives.

    It’s a massive asshole move and I’ve lost way more respect for Campo Santo than I have Pewdiepie in this whole situation.

  4. As he mentioned, what makes this case particularly interesting is that the developer has a streaming policy on their website, where they allow people to stream their games and monetize them – retroactively revoking this licence shouldn’t be possible.

    In fact, I’m rather certain that there was already a decision about this in the past: someone released content under a creative commons licence, but later decided to change the licence to something else, so he could earn money – he started suing people who used his content, but ultimatively was defeated in court.

  5. Campo Santo are being unreasonable here. There were so many potential positive outcomes here and Sean Vanaman went nuclear immediately and destroyed any possibility of them happening.

    Instead of just attacking someone who you disagree with, why not openly ask them to use your combined platforms to talk about the issues you claim to care about? And then calmly say if you do not, we are going to publicly ask you to stop streaming our game.

    Then… you give Felix an option to be open to change if change is needed and he looks like a dick if he just outright refuses. I don’t think he WOULD refuse. I think VANAMAN would because he’s bought into this “don’t give a platform” concept. History has shown time and time again that if you actively remove the voice of people who definitely do have problems, they only get worse. Being unopen to find out if there IS a problem is proof that Camp Santo indeed DOES have a problem.

    I think it is FAR more likely that the word he used came up like word vomit because of a problem in online gaming with that word. Hearing it over and over again in response to bad things happening probably has an effect. With the hundreds and hundreds of hours of Felix streaming games online where that word WASN’T used can’t mean nothing. It is worth a discussion. The word in general is worth discussion. Silencing someone is exactly the opposite of discussion and has the exact opposite effect…. it makes everything worse.

    I don’t see how anyone can justify Campo Santo and Sean Vanaman here. And this is coming from a SERIOUS fan of Vanaman’s work. I was SO EXCITED for Firewatch when I heard about it SPECIFICALLY because of his involvement. But this is ridiculous and I will not buy Campo Santo games if this is how they want to run their business.

  6. Since Pewdiepie has the funds maybe he should go ahead and litigate this and get us a binding court ruling that can be used as precedent. Even if a court finds Let’s Plays to non-transformative under Fair Use at least everyone will know where things stand and content creators and developers can proceed accordingly. You know, like what H3H3 did except for LPs.

  7. First of all felix’s use of a racial slur is kind of a mega-dumb newsletter. That shit aint that bad and i feel like he’s already done right and more by apologizing.

    Second. No, let’s plays are not a legal grey area. Game reviews are not a legal grey area. This shit has gone through enough courts to be fairly well understood. Pewdiepie’s stage character is not somehow different when he doesn’t play video games.

    If anything felix, the one with 50 million or more subscribers is doing nothing but good for he developer. The developer is straight up dumb/malicious/having ulterior motives by attacking felix’s channel.

    What’s more is felix had like 50 million subscribers before he even began streaming this one specific game.

    I dont even subscribe to felix. These are just the facts.

    This game developer is just attacking a giant in hopes of fame, attention, or sales. It’s drama news. It’s drama news and is about as dumb as it gets.

  8. While I don’t agree that they should, I think they are in their right to ask him to take the content down, but the firewatch devs are just trying to give him a strike. They’re being kinda assholes.

    It’s really a grey area, but it’s absurd to try and take down through youtube before talking about it.

  9. Why do people ever apologize to regressive progressives? That’s exactly what you don’t do. Their words are not actions, they mean nothing only if you allow them to mean nothing. Coercion is always voluntary, don’t play their bullshit games. Duh.

  10. The takedown notice appears to be completely malicious due to the fact they not only gave him permission to make the video but then, after filing a false DMCA takedown request, very publicly vied for others do file similarly fraudulent DMCA takedowns. Pewdiepie wont do it – but he should sue this motherfucker into the ground, the guy is just trying to make a buck off of the drama, illegally, at Pewdiepie’s expense. If the channel was taken offline, ever, as result of this one DMCA notice, I’d do everything to make sure this asshole dev is responsible for every lost penny of revenue.

  11. I think Campo Santo’s move to DMCA Pewdiepie’s video would scare more streamers and youtubers from playing Firewatch or any other video games they make. If they say anything that Campo Santo decides they don’t like they might end up facing the same threat of a take down.

  12. It seems like a really shady situation. Sure devs can revoke privileges to publish content related to their IP, but the amount of flak they would take might cripple developers. Any show of bad faith can lead to a situation where who has the real leverage is broken down.

  13. Let me get this straight. This guy strikes down a video that his game unarguably benefited from, that he gave expressed written permission to be filmed, because the creator said the N-word 2 years later. All so he can look like some kind of SJW internet hero. Got it.

  14. not going to lie I’ve watch let’s play preciesly so that I don’t have to buy it for games like firewatch. Another good example of a watch but don’t play game for me is The Last of Us. Didn’t have a playstation and didn’t want to shell out a ton of cash for one game. So I just watched a no commentary play through. I still enjoyed it a lot and I’ll probably do it again for the sequel.

  15. Did they at least send PewDiePie an official warning to take down the Firewatch Let’s Play video from his channel before they sent a DMCA notice? I’m no lawyer, but I think that if they didn’t send any notice and still decided to send a DMCA strike then the fact their official website says that streamers can make videos of their games could cause a lot of problems for them.

    With that approach any company would be able to take down any Youtube channel they dislike simply by giving authorization for people to stream their content and then issuing DMCA notices on multiple videos from the same channel to cause it to close down. It’s basically the copyright version of entrapment.

    And the worst part is seeing so many idiots who have their heads so far up their asses that they cannot see the problem in this just because this time it’s causing someone who said the “N” word live to be affected.

  16. All this Pewdiepie’s Takedowns and drama getting this year is a sign that the only reason on why he can possibly lose the ‘Most Subscribed Youtube Channel’ is by getting his own channel deleted with all the shit he gets.

  17. I will never buy a fire watch game. Dudes intentions are clearly malicious towards Felix. What’s worse, uttering a racial slur accidentally, or purposely going out of your way to destroy someone career after they’ve helped build yours? The guy is a SJW sociopath.

  18. After doing some research, although I would still consider it malicious, this developer along with any developers in the case of let’s play videos (the thing on their website just specifically said “streaming” which does not include let’s play videos) have the right to revoke their license for someone to use their creative property (i.e. video game) at anytime.

    While this is unfortunate, the developer does have this legal right in the United States since let’s plays are not protected under fair use officially. So while I definitely agree with Pewdiepie that this developer is overstepping his bounds, the dev is legally in the right and Pewdiepie would likely lose if he took this to court.

    Unless the video maker, in this case Pewdiepie, directly writes a license with the developer, the license for let’s play content will default to revocable at anytime. This would legally allow the originally copyright holder to issue a take-down for any reason they deem fit for any number of videos that contain their copyrighted content.

    If this developer banded together with other developers, they would legally be able to take down Pewdiepie’s channel with copyright strikes.

    I do not agree with the law, but the law has not caught up with YouTube. Should Pewdiepie take this to court to challenge fair use law in the United States? Yes. Right now as the law stands, the developer has this ability.

    It is unfortunate, but it is true.

  19. Is it being ingnored that we dont see all of the firewatch developers tweets?

    He says he understands that people make money off the game and they in turn make money from the free marketing.

    They are doing thr dmca as the contect cant be viewed as “endorsement” and they don’t want to be associated with it

  20. I have no judgments for or against any of the people in this event because I think that anything possible is fine to do, but I think that copyright law in its current form is really poorly put together and that this sort of thing shouldn’t be an event that we’re witnessing, and that our legislators should do a better job to make this sort of thing less possible.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *