It Doesn't Matter How Much Of An Asshole You Think Someone Is, That's No Excuse To DMCA

from the that's-not-how-copyright-law-works dept

We've pointed out time and time again that one of the problems with setting up any rules that allow for content to be taken down online is just how widely they will be abused. This is one of the reasons why we think that CDA 230's immunity is much better than the DMCA 512 safe harbors. Under CDA 230, if a platform receives a takedown over content that is, say, defamatory, they get to decide how best to act, without a change in their own legal liability. They can take it down, or they can leave it up, but there's no greater legal risk in either decision. With the DMCA, it's different. If you, as a platform, refuse to take down the content, you then risk much greater legal liability. And, because of this, we regularly see the DMCA abused by anyone who wants to make certain content disappear -- even if it has nothing to do with copyright.

Take this latest example of game developer Sean Vanaman, who has promised to issue DMCA takedown notices for YouTube star PewDiePie's (Felix Kjellberg) videos featuring Vanaman's video game, Firewatch:

The issue is, more or less, that PewDiePie is, well, kind of a jackass and possibly a bigot (there's some dispute over whether he's really a bigot or just "proving a point," but I'm going with Popehat's famous Goatfucker Rule on this one). And PewDiePie did one of his awful, insensitive PewDiePie things, which has reasonably pissed off some people.

One of those people is Vanaman, who is pointing directly to this episode as the reason why he's going to issue DMCA takedowns and is urging other game developers to do the same:

And, look, it's completely reasonable to dislike PewDiePie. And it's completely reasonable to be upset that someone you dislike and believe is toxic has done videos showing your games. But what's not reasonable and also not allowed under the law is to abuse the DMCA to take down content, just because you don't like how someone's using it. PewDiePie's videos are almost certainly fair use. While we've seen some debate over "Let's Play" videos like PewDiePie's over the years, in general most copyright experts who've discussed the matter seem to feel that the standard Let's Play video is very likely to be protected by fair use.

Having seen some of PewDiePie's Firewatch let's play video, it definitely would appear to be protected by fair use. The fact that Vanaman directly and publicly admits that he's not taking the video down for any valid copyright reason, but rather because he thinks PewDiePie is "a propagator of despicable garbage" doesn't help Vanaman's case at all. Rather, it gives PewDiePie a lot more leverage to claim that any such takedown would be abusive, and possibly even a violation of the DMCA's 512(f) against misrepresentations.

But the larger point remains: no matter what you think of PewDiePie or Vanaman, the issue here is that when we create laws that give people the power to take down content, it will be abused for a variety of reasons. Often -- as is the case here -- those reasons will have absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Vanaman spouting off about his non-copyright reasons for wanting to issue a takedown only makes that so much clearer in this case.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 9:04am

    And yet this abomination of a law that allows prior restraint and censorship with the blessings and enforcement of the Government still exists. Despite all the obvious and well documented abuses.

    Some would say it's a feature...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 9:52am

    Discuss

    Ars Technica did an article on this as well, (link: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/09/firewatch-dev-uses-dmca-against-pewdiepie-after-streamed-raci al-slur/ ).

    Interestingly, they came to the opposite conclusion that his use of DMCA was perfectly legal and legit in this instance based on the fact that they have a legal right to revoke the use of their games at any time and that PewDiePie's use didn't constitute fair use.

    I don't think I necessarily agree with Ars Technica in this case as it seems like his Firewatch video is pretty clearly fair use and the offensive remark he made wasn't even in a video of Firewatch, it was in a video of PUBG. I'm curious to know Techdirt's take on that as well as the rest of this community.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Sean, 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:19am

      Re: Discuss

      Here is the thing, It's still not a valid DMCA complaint. According to that PewDiePie violetated their terms of service, and seeing as I haven't read Firewatch's TOS but given how broad some of them are, I believe they are within their right to revoke his game key/liscence. But that doesn't constitute a DMCA violation of his videos.

      I'm sure they could try to take the TOS violation to court and prevent any further videos from being produced, but that doesn't give you the same publicity and isn't as immediate as their use of the DMCA system.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:27am

      Re: Discuss

      I read that as well. I disagree with Ars because their article seems to iply that creators are omnipotent concerning their copyrights and this is clearly wrong. Fair use is there to prove the point. As much as the guy may or may not be a bigoted asshole the creator can't do a thing, at least not without abusing the system. Uncomfortable to see your work being used by the guy? Certainly. But he can't do a thing about it.

      They do discuss about the transformative nature (or not) of playtrough videos and it seems to be somewhat of a gray zone but it would have wide implications on an entire group of videos that do the exact same and I don't think we want to go down that hole.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 11:32am

        Re: Re: Discuss

        That was pretty much my thought as well. And I also agree with Sean that they could revoke his license key if they wanted but the video is fair use and shouldn't be taken down.

        If Ars is right, then you could get content taken down for anything, just because you don't "agree" with a person. For instance, say Youtuber29 is a Democrat and does a video of GameXYZ that was made by a Republican. Under what seems to be Ars' view, then the Republican game dev could DMCA Youtuber29's video of GamXYZ solely on the basis that he doesn't like the fact that he's a Democrat and doesn't want his work to be associated with it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 5:04pm

      Re: Discuss

      Lol, some ass in Ars's comments apparently isn't a Techdirt fan:

      (my comment linking this article to the thread:)

      Toom1275 wrote:
      Techdirt has a relevant analysis: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170 ... dmca.shtml

      (their response:)

      There is precisely zero analysis in that link. The closest they come is saying "it definitely would appear to be fair use". That's not analysis, it's an assertion. They link to a single analysis that, wrongly, treats all videos with commentary at equal, and claim it as a majority opinion. The linked opinion also overstates a case that I happen to be connected to personally, so I wouldn't very my first born in the validity of it, were I you.

      You'll get better "analysis" from the commentors I disagree with in this thread than you will reading that piece. Calling that analysis is an affront to the very word.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 11 Sep 2017 @ 5:23pm

        Re: Re: Discuss

        The commenter's (admitted) personal bias aside, it's a fair criticism. Masnick says "in general most copyright experts who've discussed the matter seem to feel that the standard Let's Play video is very likely to be protected by fair use," but only backs that claim up with one source. While I certainly value Techdirt's perspective (I wouldn't be here otherwise), I think it would be valuable to link to more legal analysis on the fair use argument for LPs, especially if he's going to claim there's some kind of general consensus.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      MosesZD, 14 Sep 2017 @ 11:38am

      Re: Discuss

      ArsTechnica has certain political-correctness issues which tend to skew any kind of analysis they do. In short, they're fairly tribal.

      If this was one of their ideological tribe, their answer would be 'let's play is a transformative fair use.' And they have taken/reported that position many times.

      But PDP isn't on their friend's list, so it's not transformative fair use.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2017 @ 1:11pm

        Re: Re: Discuss

        ArsTechnica being a bunch of tribalistic ideologues is an understatement. They often ban people for expressing dissenting points of view.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Machin Shin, 11 Sep 2017 @ 9:55am

    Well, Sean Vanaman, let me just take a moment to say FUCK YOU. I was actually planning on buying a copy of firewatch, but I will spend that money elsewhere now. I will also make a point to avoid anything you put out in the future.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 12:40pm

      Re:

      His use of the DMCA is to make a counterpoint to PewDiePie's wonderful "point". It doesn't matter if the DMCA is successful. Mr. Vanaman will have made his point very publicly thanks to articles such as this one.

      Your rage comes off as being in support of PewDiePie rather than in opposition to Sean Vanaman.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 1:49pm

        Re: Re:

        No, the subject of his rage was spelled out rather clearly, I think. The poster you responded to even stated the name of the person to which he was directing his remark. GTFO with that 'if you're not with me you're against me' bullshit. It is possible to be opposed to both positions in an incident, yet still find one of them MORE deplorable. I agree with the OP,Sean can go fuck himself and I will never purchase anything from a studio he is involved with. What's more, I can say that and in no way support (or denounce) PDP and his antics.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 9:20pm

        Re: Re:

        "His use of the DMCA is to make a counterpoint to PewDiePie's wonderful "point". It doesn't matter if the DMCA is successful."

        Nor does it matter if use of the DMCA is unsuccessful, it still shouldn't be abused for non-copyright performances. Look at the bigger picture and see how this is just another example of the problem that needs to be stopped, not justified because you think it's okay in this case.

        "Your rage comes off as being in support of PewDiePie rather than in opposition to Sean Vanaman."

        And your comment comes off as being completely from your imagination. Literally nothing in the comment implies that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 4:07pm

      Re:

      Likewise. I had considered picking up the game at some point, but if this is what the developer is like I think I'll pass.

      PewDiePie may or may not be a bigot(I think I've seen all of two of his vidoes so I can't say for sure, and I'm not terribly interested in investigating the matter either way), but abusing the law and encouraging others to do the same in order to shut him up is not something I care to support now that I know about it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:11am

    Not sure how PopeHat's goatfucker rule applies to people who grew up surrounded by a community where the definition of profanity are regularly repurposed. Also not sure how his goatfucker rule applies to comedians or South Park.

    Each to their own I suppose.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:41am

      Re:

      When your comedy relies on bigoted views of the world maybe it's time you changed your tune.

      If he is using racial slurs then he is a 'goatfucker' even if he says the contrary. I used to use profanities that are clearly racist, homophobic but that I had no conscious clue that they were. When I was made aware of it I did my best to stop using them. So I do make use of profanities regularly but now I avoid the ones charged with prejudice. Calling somebody a piece of shit may have the same intention of calling him/her a ni***r for PewDiePie but the first doesn't carry the implicit racism but it's still profanity.

      I wouldn't say I steer clear of such bigotry but I'm doing my best to get rid of what I inherited from our inherently bigoted society.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:57am

        Re: Re:

        When your comedy relies on bigoted views of the world maybe it's time you changed your tune.

        Relying on bigoted views of the world is most of what shock humor is as a genre.

        If he is using racial slurs then he is a 'goatfucker' even if he says the contrary. I used to use profanities that are clearly racist, homophobic but that I had no conscious clue that they were. When I was made aware of it I did my best to stop using them. So I do make use of profanities regularly but now I avoid the ones charged with prejudice. Calling somebody a piece of shit may have the same intention of calling him/her a ni***r for PewDiePie but the first doesn't carry the implicit racism but it's still profanity.

        I have to wonder what you consider Dave Chapelle then.

        Words are not magic spells that have consequences outside of peoples reactions to them. PewDiePie does not have a history of being hateful or racist. What he does have a history of, however, is being an edgelord. One that is apparently extremely stupid for using a racial slur in a political environment where news outlets have a history of making up claims of bigotry about him. Edgyness is not an excuse for this level of stupidity.

        I wouldn't say I steer clear of such bigotry but I'm doing my best to get rid of what I inherited from our inherently bigoted society.

        I'm curious what you think of Avenue Q's "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist".

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovF1zsDoeM

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Ninja (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 11:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I was meaning to further develop it but got lazy. By all means, making fun of such bigotry is pretty good and standard nowadays yes. I'll give you an example of a joke I heard in the distant past that would fit what I said:

          What's the difference of a can of shit and a black person? The can.

          This is awful, despicable but I remember people laughing when I heard that as a kid. It's a whole lot different from South Park making Cartman a complete bigoted asshole for instance. It's not the ideas he spew that are funny, it's the absurd in them, the idiocy of his bigotry that make him funny (or at least I hope that's the idea from the creators).

          I hope I clarified my point. That "joke" I heard when I was a kid is not a joke, it's not funny. Shouldn't have been funny in the past as well. So if some comedian relies on that type of humor, well...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 12:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Dave Chapelle is one of the world's most prolific goatfuckers.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 7:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I have to wonder what you consider Dave Chapelle then.

          Dave Chappelle is a black person. He has far, far more fo a right to use “nigger” in the context of insulting other people than a white person would or should ever have. If you wonder why, I suggest reading “Slurs: Who Can Say Them, When, and Why” from The Weekly Sift.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Thad, 12 Sep 2017 @ 9:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I would add that Dave Chappelle is a man who, at the height of his popularity and profitability, walked away from a lucrative deal because he was disgusted by the realization that a lot of white fans were laughing at his jokes for superficial and racist reasons, missing the deeper social commentary he was making.

            And, not for nothin', he doesn't use the N-word anymore.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2017 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re:

        A Swedish dude using an American racial slur is about as offensive as a Chinese dude using it.

        The real racism here is saying only certain groups of people can use certain words while others cannot.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Daniel Audy, 16 Sep 2017 @ 12:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yup people thinking that someone is a bigoted asshole is _exactly_ the same as those people treating others as lesser simply because of their skin. Glad you've contributed this deeply intelligent piece of thought here rather than using the toilet to dispose of it like a normal person.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:42am

    Precedent maybe?

    I'd classify let's play videos as fair use, but has that ever been tested in court? I feel like neither side wants to risk setting a precedent that goes against them. Either "unauthorized" let's plays go extinct, or game publishers lose the right to forcibly monetize videos that feature their game footage for purposes of criticism and commentary.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:52am

    The problem with DMCA is currently there isn't any real consequence for being abused. I think until that is brought up, everyone should abuse the hell out of it. Maybe then it will finally come to light that it should be a little more balanced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      carlb, 12 Sep 2017 @ 8:40am

      Re:

      Would it be possible to use DMCA to have the entire Trump presidency taken down, as a blatant infringement on the copyright to "The Simpsons" episode "Bart to the Future"?

      The similarities are similar enough that this surely is infringing content, sworn under some fictional 'penalty of perjury' which means seemingly nothing in practice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    aethercowboy (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:55am

    Someone should remind Mr. Vanaman about Section 512(f) before he takes legal action. I'd imageine Mr. Kjellberg has the resources to follow it through.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:55am

    Sick And Tired

    ""I am sick of this child getting more and more chances to make money off of what we make," writes Vanaman on Twitter."

    I am sick and tired of people who get angry when value is added on top of their platforms by other players in the economy. That's how business works.

    You don't hear steel workers angry when carmakers make a car from their steal then, "make money off what we make."

    You don't hear carmakers getting angry when taxi companies buy their cars, then "make money off what we make."

    The fact is, your products, my products, ANY product ain't worth shit to the market if we don't offer the buyers the opportunity to extract Economic Surplus from it. Whether that's in the form of Consumer Surplus, or Value-Added revenues from a business - people should be able to use your products to serve their needs.

    And it doesn't matter if you like or don't like what they do with it. It is literally none of your business.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 10:59am

    I would laugh if Vanaman loses rights over this

    I believe that anyone who abuses DMCA like this should lose all rights to enforce it once they are caught. This goes for everyone from the lowest linked videos to Disney itself. Their is far too much power taken away from the people to give this supposedly good thing, but the balance of power has never been in our favor and every year the shift away from us is more evident.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 11:42am

    uhh so here's a question: has ANYONE challenged this under the 1st amendment? You know, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? Cause this CLEARLY is abridging the freedom of speech whether intentional or not, and it CLEARLY was passed by Congress.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 1:26pm

      Re:

      That's a rather childishly simplistic view of things that misses the mark entirely. Shall we abolish prisons because the laws that put you there keep you from freely expressing yourself in your chosen venue? Don't be silly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Cdaragorn (profile), 18 Sep 2017 @ 8:18am

        Re: Re:

        That's a rather childishly simplistic comparison that doesn't hold an ounce of water when you actually question it.

        You're comparing taking the rights of someone away AFTER they have broken the law with making exercising your constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech breaking the law.

        Don't be silly.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Pirate Bear (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 4:42pm

      Re:

      The last I checked the EFF actually was challenging the DMCA on 1st amendment grounds in that security researchers aren't allowed to publish their findings due to the anti-circumvention clauses.

      Since takedown notices have (effectively non functional) repercussions for false notices it probably would just pass a 1st amendment test, but that's how I see it. What Sean is doing should constitute perjury, but nothing will every come from it. Actual constitutional lawyers could probably weigh in much better than I could here.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 1:06pm

    I curious to know if there's any legal history of let's plays.

    In the half-century that video games have been around, has there ever been a legal precedent that public performance of them is a violation of copyright? Has anyone ever argued that an arcade needs permission from the creators to operate a machine? How about unofficial esports tournaments? I wonder if game shows like Starcade had or needed permission to use the games they used. My Google searches only seem to turn up a case saying playing a board game for/in the public is not a performance.

    Also, any precedents that consider streaming a game the same as reproducing that game? Copying a game and showing someone playing the game seem very different to me but I can see a large grey area as games have moved more towards the cinematic side of the spectrum.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 1:34pm

    Digital Millennium Censorship Act

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 1:46pm

    But you never weigh the abuse against the good.

    "We've pointed out time and time again that one of the problems with setting up any rules that allow for content to be taken down online is just how widely they will be abused."

    Because you don't regard content as worthy of any protection.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 3:22pm

      Re: But you never weigh the abuse against the good.

      Well, you tried :/

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 4:02pm

      ... nope, still filled with straw

      Though I know I risk a prime source of entertainment by doing so, I feel I should tell you that no matter how enthusiastically you whale away at that strawman it will never accomplish anything, nor prove the 'point' you're trying to make.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 6:23pm

      Re: But you never weigh the abuse against the good.

      See, you're learning! Condense all your garbage into one dumbass post that can be just as easily refuted, you TOR pirate.

      The funny thing is, I don't like PewDiePie. But what I do is what you copyright-types have been telling us all this time: do without. Somehow that's not an option and you have to use copyright to protect... against something that doesn't fall under copyright. And you wonder why nobody respects or "protects" content. You don't have a clue on how to do that either.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 7:32pm

      Re: But you never weigh the abuse against the good.

      Whose content do you mean, in this case?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 4:05pm

    If only the law wasn't so horribly lopsided favoring creators over the rights of citizens, empowering them to think they are allowed to punish you for behavior they dislike well outside of their content.

    You made a thing, he bought a thing, you really don't have any right to say well you said a naughty word elsewhere so we are going to attack you by claiming we own everything & you have no rights.

    Of course the law is basically toothless for citizens targeted by this stupid shit to fight back & its a long uphill battle but the law also demands everyone else jump first then maybe sorta kinda ask questions.

    If a baby dances on the internet & you can barely hear a song are his heirs owed a trillion dollars?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    silentchasm (profile), 11 Sep 2017 @ 4:57pm

    These claims seem to go against their site's about page

    As people on other sites have pointed out, these claims seem to go against their site's about page: http://www.firewatchgame.com/about/

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2017 @ 6:05pm

      Re: These claims seem to go against their site's about page

      Lol I really hope he apologizes now and tries to make this all go away before the hole gets any deeper. I see absolutely zero chance of him coming away without hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees and fines if he insists on his retarded stance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2017 @ 4:41am

    Is DMCA a verb now?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2017 @ 10:14am

    How to amend Dmca

    People should organise a DMCA takedown campaign targeting congressmen web pages.

    Te fixes to law will follow swiftly

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Gio, 14 Sep 2017 @ 10:38am

    Pewds

    When people use the n word in songs,tv show etch people doesnt complain about it but if pewds say it it's offensive ,what i think is that people just want to destroy the reputation of pewd thats why they're complain about it

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 15 Sep 2017 @ 5:42pm

      Re: Pewds

      When people use the n word in songs,tv show etch people doesnt complain about it

      They do if the person who says it isn't black.

      what i think is that people just want to destroy the reputation of pewd

      He's doing a fine job of that all by himself.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2017 @ 11:22am

    Fun fact. PDP put up a new video on why Campo Santo's actions constitute an illegal takedown, and guess what he linked to? Three guesses :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2017 @ 4:14pm

    There has been a lot of YouTubers that have say that word but I think fowling a counter strike is not fair if other YouTubers have said that word don't t think they should get a counter strike I feel like it is not okay

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Joseph zavala, 14 Sep 2017 @ 7:11pm

    Stuff

    Ayo suck ma dick leave pewds alone

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Akshay, 14 Sep 2017 @ 10:43pm

    PewDiePie DMCA Takedown

    Mr Sean Vanaman, Another classic example of taking things out of context. So, let's just get to the point. "I'm sick of this child making money off games that we create." Remember how many views PewDiePie's Firewatch video had? Almost 6 million. And out of the 6 million people who watched that video I bet almost 20% of the people bought your game, only because of having watched that video. Millions came to know about about your game only because of PewDiePie. So, you may think that you're doing a favour on him 'cause he played your game, but in reality it's your game that benefitted the most. ("Benefitted", won't anymore, you dug your own grave by starting this drama). "He's worse than a closeted racist." Just explain me how saying ONE single word makes someone racist. If someone else would've used the word, everyone would've just laughed it away, but hey, PewDiePie, a YouTube "celebrity" who's known for making millions playing videogames said the word, and why not take the opportunity to start a rant and convert it into your life's best investment? Even if he said that word, it had nothing to do with your damn game. PewDiePie can sue you easily by taking the matter to court for illegal takedown under DMCA's section 512 (f), but he won't, he's a lot better than spending his time on things like this. Anyway, I'd like to say, I've been wanting to buy your game for a while and so did many of my friends, but not anymore, you've lost all our respect Mr Sean due to yourself only.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2017 @ 10:27pm

      Re: PewDiePie DMCA Takedown

      " If someone else would've used the word, everyone would've just laughed it away"

      This is literally false.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 2:59pm

        Re: Re: PewDiePie DMCA Takedown

        Some people can even do black face and won't get a shitstorm.
        for example Robert Downey Jr.

        And that's just the start.
        Actual racists say that "only white people can be racist", which is racist in itself and also makes no sense either. But that's what they do and yes, for some other people it would've been laughed away.

        Which means your post makes no sense and is actually literally false.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    fuck U sean!!, 15 Sep 2017 @ 12:42am

    FUCK U SEAN!!

    fuck you jealous person who cant see others are developing !!
    Just fuck you i swear to never use your fuckin products!!
    peace of shit!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2017 @ 5:35pm

    the reason I bought the game is because of pewdiepie and lots of other YouTuber's let's plays because (and I think a lot of people do this) that is how you know what new and popular game is out and some awfully sounding indie game that actually is good... and that is why I think even if you don't like pewdiepie, he advertised your game so you should give him props not hate if you possibly continue with this not only will you take down (possibly) pewdiepie's videos, but you will take down your entire legacy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.