Sections

Counterpoint: People Think Campo Santo is Dangerous for Issuing PewDiePie a DMCA Takedown, They're Not

The precedent Campo Santo supposedly sets isn't so much a precedent as it is their right.

Opinion by Matt Kim, .

This past weekend, YouTube celebrity Felix "PewDiePie" Kjellberg said the n-word while livestreaming a game of PlayerUnknown's Battleground. Although not confirmed to be a direct response to that particular incident, Firewatch developer Campo Santo issued a DMCA takedown of one of Kjellberg's videos where he played their game in a Let's Play. The move was meant to separate Campo Santo and Kjellberg, but a group of internet users have sprung up against Campo Santo for supposedly setting a dangerous precedent.

The only problem is that it's not precedent when video game companies already reserve the right to take down videos featuring their games.

Felix "PewDiePie" Kjellberg

Social media users in support of Kjellberg, or even just against Campo Santo's DMCA action, are arguing for a variety of things like a boycott of Campo Santo—or even weirder—for Kjellberg to sue Campo Santo and win the rights to Firewatch. Some have even cited a post on Campo Santo's website that encourages livestreaming as "false advertising" and grounds for litigation.

Like many of the people sounding off on Twitter, I'm not a lawyer. But I'm also not here to mince any words. Campo Santo wanted to separate the company and its game from Kjellberg—who has a history of racist and anti-semitic outbursts—and as lawyers have already commented, it is in Campo Santo's right to issue the DMCA as Firewatch is its own license.

"Ideas are not protected under copyright but the expression of an idea is," lawyer Michael Lee of Morrison & Lee LLP told Glixel in an interview. "Therefore, many parts of a video game are protected under copyright including the look of the game, the dialogue, and the music. The DMCA permits copyright owners to issue takedown requests of people infringing the copyright to a game. Technically, video game companies can issue takedown requests for any gameplay that is posted online and companies like Nintendo have done this in the past."

Lee cites bad feedback as a reason why companies don't usually wield DMCA takedowns, but if Kjellberg's being is something Campo Santo wants nothing to be a part of, that's just how the system works.

Firewatch

Naturally, as my coworker Mike and others have pointed out, DMCA takedowns have been used previously to the detriment of various online communities. Nintendo, Atlus' Persona 5 streaming, and others come to mind. So it's weird that there are those saying Campo Santos' use of DMCA is setting a precedent when the precedents were already set.

The obvious "precedent" here then is that in this particular case, Campo Santo used the punitive action to separate themselves from an offensive, and one could argue, harmful individual. And if that's a move other game developers want to do to keep their games away from being associated with racists or other dangerous individuals—well, I won't say all power to them because that power is already theirs.

If you're someone who's afraid that a video game company can now come after you for saying racist remarks while playing a video game, then maybe you have to reconsider your priorities since they can already come after your video game video for literally any other reason. And if you're wondering why corporations and private interests have so much power over your creative output, as many fair use advocates argue in regards to video game videos, then maybe you should reconsider how you feel about a free market system than you do about an indie game studio that doesn't want to associate themselves with an offensive YouTube personality.

This article may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and buy the product we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.

Comments 48

  • Avatar for chaoticBeat #1 chaoticBeat 9 days ago
    How people can support that idiot is beyond my comprehension. I am with Campo Santo all the way.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Vonlenska #2 Vonlenska 9 days ago
    This is a really interesting case. Evoking slippery slopes and future consequences set by precedent is often a canard...but in this instance does seem like it muddies an already murky pool. I am sincerely unsure how this affects DMCA takedowns generally, or if it even can. It's a pretty specific situation. I'm not sure it'd even set a bad precedent, as consequences for vocal bigotry are probably okay, and most DMCA takedowns have considerably more nebulous rationales, anyway. Kjellberg is a public figure with a large audience who makes a considerable income streaming. This and past offenses of his are beyond "controversial opinions," so losing rights to use others' media as a consequence likely doesn't represent a serious threat to streamers and journalists in general.

    I totally understand Campo Santo's perspective here. I would want to distance my work from Kjellberg, too. The actual legal workings of the case are pretty far beyond me, but it looks like the intent is to sever ties (however loose) and complicity by not allowing Kjellberg to use their work at all, which I think is...fine, actually.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Iliya-Moroumetz #3 Iliya-Moroumetz 9 days ago
    Seriously, Campo does not want to be associated with Pukiepie in any way, shape, or form. What the hell are they supposed to do? As it stands, the DMCA is their only option.Edited 2 weeks ago by Iliya-Moroumetz
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for WiIIyTheAntelope #4 WiIIyTheAntelope 9 days ago
    2 days ago exactly 0 people associated Firewatch with Pewdiepie in any way, shape or form. Today they do, tomorrow and forever they will. For people that are supposedly trying to distance themselves from Pewdiepie, they sure did shoot themselves in the foot.

    And yeah. Abusing DCMA takedowns because you don't like what someone said in a completely unrelated video is bad. You shouldn't be promoting that idea, as you're only about a half step away from publishers issuing takedown orders on you because they don't like a review you post.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for chaoticBeat #5 chaoticBeat 9 days ago
    @WiIIyTheAntelope Campo Santo took a stand against him and I respect them for it though they already gained my respect previously with the content of their games and sending one fan an in-game book.

    I don't see it as "abusing" a DCMA takedown as much as using it as a means of discontinuing any support of him. If more game publishers followed suit then that would actually send a message.

    Also, racial slurs are not equivalent to poor reviews. I completely support their stance and would not want that creep being supported by a game I created.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for WiIIyTheAntelope #6 WiIIyTheAntelope 9 days ago
    @chaoticBeat If more publishers followed suit it would lead to nothing but bad things. Publishers have been notoriously shady since the inception of the gaming industry, and you're kidding yourself if you think they'll stop at people who said something *insert whatever bad thing here*. They will use it to squash any and all criticism.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Iliya-Moroumetz #7 Iliya-Moroumetz 9 days ago
    @WiIIyTheAntelope Silencing criticism for a game and wanting to distance yourself from some yuppie spouting racist language are not the same thing.Edited 2 weeks ago by Iliya-Moroumetz
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NiceGuyNeon #8 NiceGuyNeon 9 days ago
    I'm curious to see how Campo Santo's action may impact further actions down the line when it comes to DMCA. I think they have the right state of mind, but using the DMCA as a reaction to an action (at least openly which was one of Mike's point) could be setting a precedent for others to do the same. And would that precedent just be against racist views? Would it be broader? I don't know.

    I'm with Campo Santo in disassociating with PewDiePie because as an influencer of younger people he is having a negative impact on society in my opinion. But I'd really like to see how this all shakes down. I don't think it'll escalate between Campo Santo and PewDiePie, but I'm curious to see if others take this as precedent and use the DMCA to take down views they disagree with.

    Will this be the first in a chain of events that causes people to behave or will it be the first in a chain of events that leads to unwarranted takedowns, or will it be both? Will it go to trial at any point? I don't know, but if it does it'll be really interesting to read. I'm honestly fascinated by Campo Santo at the moment and the impact they may have moving forward.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for chaoticBeat #9 chaoticBeat 9 days ago
    @WiIIyTheAntelope You have a good point and at this point for me it's SMASH RACISM and fight it anywhere it shows. My reaction to this guy's behavior pretty much supersedes any concerns I have about the game industry silencing consumer reports.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for WiIIyTheAntelope #10 WiIIyTheAntelope 9 days ago
    @Iliya-Moroumetz Ya think?

    It's a shame they've done such a terrible job at distancing themselves from him. I guess that's the price you pay for virtue signaling.

    Edit: Sorry, double post. Something something an error occurred.Edited 2 weeks ago by WiIIyTheAntelope
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for WiIIyTheAntelope #11 WiIIyTheAntelope 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by WiIIyTheAntelope
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for airbagfin51 #12 airbagfin51 9 days ago
    Great reasoning in this article.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for airbagfin51 #13 airbagfin51 9 days ago
    @NiceGuyNeon Good questions. I imagine the response will vary across the board. In order to do this, you have to care enough about the issues raised by the video to actively issue the copyright infringement request. Of course, many large developers could have their legal teams responsible for Youtube simply add this type of thing to their 'blacklists', since they have that legal machinery at their disposal. For indies, it really depends on how much they care and whether they feel that taking the time to do this is worth it.

    The one issue I see in your post is the question of whether or not companies will start takedowns more flagrantly. The thing is that there is no 'unwarranted takedown', at least legally. The reason for taking something down in this manner never comes into it, other than that the copyright holder does not give permission to the individual transmitting their work. We can argue and publicly debate about it, and perhaps take action to change the laws around copyright, but that's the extent of 'appropriateness of takedowns'.Edited 2 times. Last edited 2 weeks ago by airbagfin51
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Jonnyboy407 #14 Jonnyboy407 9 days ago
    I'm getting old. I don't understand a word in the title of the article. Except "think"
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for LBD_Nytetrayn #15 LBD_Nytetrayn 9 days ago
    I don't know... in terms of precedent, to my understanding, neither Nintendo nor Atlus single out individuals, do they? Save for Nintendo's little streamers club, it's pretty much blanket rules for everyone, are they not?

    I really don't give a damn about Kjellberg and definitely don't like what he did, but the ability to single an individual out and say THEY are infringing while effectively alleging that everyone else isn't, solely on the basis of their not saying a racially-charged word, seems to be what has people up in arms and arguing against what could potentially be established as a dangerous precedent.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Iliya-Moroumetz #16 Iliya-Moroumetz 9 days ago
    @WiIIyTheAntelope Yes, because not wanting people to associate your products with an idiot spouting racial epithets is such a horrible thing.Edited 2 weeks ago by Iliya-Moroumetz
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NiceGuyNeon #17 NiceGuyNeon 9 days ago
    @airbagfin51 You are correct, legally there's no 'unwarranted takedown' which was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant more along the lines of, if someone doesn't have hate speech are takedowns issued just because maybe they're critical of the game, etc. But based on the law, it would be fine anyway. I'd still be interested to see if that happens anyway, though I'm almost certain that it does, it just isn't announced publicly like this scenario.

    What's interesting about Campo Santo at the moment is they aren't prohibiting streaming of their games, they're just prohibiting PewDiePie. I wonder what effect that will have on their policy moving forward. Is PewDiePie the only racist who streams their games? Is it because of his reach that they're distancing themselves? I understand their policy is irrelevant to the actual black letter law, but I also still want to see how that may change too.

    They're easily the most interesting part of the situation.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for sfalletta #18 sfalletta 9 days ago
    It's easy for a company to ignore this idiot and go along hoping to profit from the full market. Companies do not want to be political. It can hurt the bottom-line. So I applaud Campo Santo as a gamer and a person of African descent that is sick and tired of being sick and tired of having to shrug off racial ignorance as just the way it is.Edited 2 weeks ago by sfalletta
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #19 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    @Iliya-Moroumetz And yet they are achieved through the same method, used for the same base reason. "Somebody has a video where our game is a part of it, and we don't like that person and/or what they have to say, so we'll issue a DMCA takedown."

    In point of fact, this exact thing has already happened -- see the now-infamous episode between Jim Sterling and Digital Homicide Studios over "The Slaughtering Grounds".

    Arguing against using DMCA as a retaliatory cudgel is not a defense of PDP. While yes, technically this is not a precedent as this sort of thing has already happened, this is noteworthy because it is the first time that it has been done by somebody that wasn't some no-name, quite possibly insane purveyor of awful Steam Greenlight shovelware.

    This is not analogous to Nintendo or Atlus, because those companies did blanket takedowns of ALL videos involving their content. They were actually using DMCA in a (misguided) attempt to defend their copyright. Campo is using DMCA as a tactical weapon -- and that should concern you. If you value speech at all, it should concern you.

    PDP is a vile human being -- has been for years, not that people cared to acknowledge it until recently when he started crossing the wrong crowds. But nobody is defending him in this case. It's not about being safe to say stupid racist crap without getting slapped with a DMCA takedown, it's about DMCA being used as a weapon at all. There are other, more appropriate methods to go about this.

    And for those that take the tack of, "Well, it's okay because he's a racist pile of crap", I refer you to Niemöller's "First They Came".

    Edit: Oh dear, apologies for the comment spam. A string of "There was an error" screens had me believing there might be something wrong with the formatting and re-trying several times.Edited 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #20 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #21 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #22 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #23 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #24 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #25 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #26 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #27 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #28 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    Deleted 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NightingaleXP #29 NightingaleXP 9 days ago
    @KaiserWarrior Using "First They Came" as a defense of a racist is possibly the most tone deaf argument I have ever heard in my life.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for nimzy #30 nimzy 9 days ago
    Mike's piece is MIA. Still have links to it here and from the USGamer Twitter account. On that note, I sincerely regret having visited Twitter to find this out.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for VotesForCows #31 VotesForCows 9 days ago
    Two things - First, this isn't a precedent, as the legal mechanism already exists.
    Second - where's Mike's article? I was planning to read it last night, but its gone.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for l4wd0g #32 l4wd0g 9 days ago
    I should point out that I think what Felix said was awful. That kind of language should never be spouted, on a stream or ever.

    However, if Campo Santo wants to go with the nuclear option (DMCA take down) why didn't they DMCA Polygon after the Nick Robinson thing?

    And now that this can of worms is open, I hope I don't lose Jim Sterling...
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for JamesSwiftDay #33 JamesSwiftDay 9 days ago
    DMCA's are not the way to do this.

    Also, why are they doing this now and not when PDP was axed from Disney for antisemitic remarks...?
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Tsuchinoko #34 Tsuchinoko 9 days ago
    Euh, one small thing Matt Kim, PewDiePie is actually not a racist, do some research, like a journalist would do.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for vonjankmon #35 vonjankmon 9 days ago
    Great article that sums the situation up nicely I think. Choices have repercussions and everyone has to live with the choices they make.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Frosty840 #36 Frosty840 9 days ago
    PewDiePie's use of the game in his videos is clearly transformative fair use.
    His videos are not of the game, they are of his performance as he plays the game. He is not producing a videogame by reusing the unlicensed assets of FireWatch. He isn't interfering in the sale of the company's videogames by offering an alternative videogame for sale based on a videogame they produced.
    As such, Campo Santo won't be found to have copyright on PDP's videos, should such a case go to court, and they certainly won't have found any decent lawyers who would have advised them that they do carry copyrights on PDP's videos.
    The law probably allows the developers to go after PDP via the EULA and deactivate his copy of FireWatch. It doesn't give them copyright over his videos of his own playthrough of their game.

    I couldn't give a crap about Mr Pie one way or the other. The extent to which he is an obnoxious, shrieking, racist asshole isn't at issue here. What's at issue is whether he owns his videos of his playthroughs of the game or whether an external entity who did not produce those videos owns them.

    There are many proper and legal channels for people to take to protest the actions of PDP.
    They can boycott his videos. They can boycott the sponsors of his videos. They can refuse to sell him the games he wants to play in his videos.
    They can't claim copyright on his videos of himself just because he played their game while he filmed himself playing it.
    That's not even a copyright you'd want to hand over to anyone.

    Imagine making a video commenting on PDP saying the thing you object to him saying. Should he get copyright on your video just because it includes footage he originally made? Should he get to take down your video of your personal experiences simply because you're commenting on your experience of his video? Should he get to silence you because he doesn't want you to talk about his screw-ups?

    No?

    Then maybe you should consider why you think there should be one rule for his transformative fair use, and a different rule for yours.

    Your dislike of what someone has to say doesn't give you the right to hurt them, or steal from them, or silence them, or to punch them in the face. You'll just have to find better ways of dealing with the problem.

    Those more moralistic arguments aside, there really isn't a "slippery slope" here. These aren't esoteric, untested arguments. This has played out in court any number of times already over the years and the outcome is completely clear. Honestly I'm irritated by this article as I was about Nadia's old "Don't make RPGs with party makeups that aren't as gender-diverse as I feel they should be" article, and I'm positively appalled that Mike's counter-article to this has been pulled (though I feel the legal arguments are much clearer cut than Mike did). Shame on you, whoever has done that.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Frosty840 #37 Frosty840 9 days ago
    @VotesForCows Google cache still has Mike's article. I've sanitised this link a bit so I might have screwed up but it might take you there. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Jbf1Qg16pvAJ:www.usgamer.net/articles/pewdiepie-and-firewatch-dmca-shouldnt-be-used-as-a-weapon
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KeroseneBlast #38 KeroseneBlast 9 days ago
    As a copyright lawyer, I take issue with using DMCA takedowns in this case. Their website clearly states that players can stream and monetize. I read that as Campo Santo granting an implied license to use the content of Firewatch. There's no indication that this implied license is revocable (a mistake on Campo Santo's part, IMO), so a Pewdiepie can counter the DMCA claim by stating that he has a nonrevocable license to use Campo Santo's content. Campo Santo is going to have problems showing that the implied license is revocable at will.

    If Campo Santo wants to disassociate with Pewdiepie, great, they should do so. I have no sympathy for him. Shame him on social media, don't give him future game keys, write articles for websites, etc. But DMCA takedowns are not the way to do it with their current streaming policy.

    Campo Santo should also revisit their streaming policy, possibly putting in a terms of service agreement that explicitly makes the license revocable (and possibly time-limited). If you want the option to change your association with streamers, you have to make that clear before streamers purchase your game.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for VotesForCows #39 VotesForCows 9 days ago
    @Frosty840 Huh, thanks. I wonder why it was pulled. Its another really well written, well argued piece from Mike, as you'd expect.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for camchow #40 camchow 9 days ago
    @Frosty840 actually if you are really asking I'd be curious too... what do most youtubers think of having their video's reuploaded and monetized by someone else? I don't think any of them would be ok with that, I know I've seen at least one youtuber I follow on twitter angry when one of his videos was edited and used by someone else. I'm a comic artist myself and while I know it's sort of different I also get pretty pissed off when I see a comic I created edited and reposted somewhere else. Just because you took some original content and added a bit of your own commentary or edits to it doesn't make it not piracy. That's kind of the reason romhacks don't distribute the original roms themselves right?

    I think we've gotten so used to the idea of let's plays being a thing that some people are just assuming developers don't have the legal right to protect their games. I mean they clearly do, Nintendo's been doing it for ages now.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #41 KaiserWarrior 9 days ago
    @NightingaleXP If you can read the several condemnations I had for PDP in my post, plus the explicit statement that it's not about defending him but about the principle of application for the DMCA, and still come away with "defending a racist with that is tone deaf"...

    Well, you're pretty much proving my point.
    @JamesSwiftDay
    Because there was profit to be had, and they even -- if reluctantly -- admit as much. Campo Santo didn't care about distancing themselves from PDP when he was merely controversial, only when he became a clear liability to be associated with. The bandwagon hadn't yet started rolling on acknowledging him as an awful human.
    @VotesForCows
    Non-Approved disagreement with the hivemind, most likely. Mike expressed the idea that some methods are not okay, no matter who the target is, and that there are sometimes more important things to consider than making sure some idiot e-celebrity gets his come-uppance.Edited 2 times. Last edited 2 weeks ago by KaiserWarrior
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Frosty840 #42 Frosty840 9 days ago
    @camchow I'd argue that the examples you give are not transformative fair use, whereas Let's Plays are.

    Unfortunately, the moment any Let's Player takes any publisher to court for a wrongful DMCA notice, and tries to assert that their Let's play is their own work under their own copyright, then YouTube is going to wipe the entire genre of videos off of its servers, Twitch is going to implode, the entire industry is going to grind to a halt, and all the publishers are going to lose all the publicity the videos generate for their games.

    Nobody wants to set off those fireworks.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for camchow #43 camchow 9 days ago
    @Frosty840 I mean I agree that it's a interesting or scary time for video game videos but ultimately I think if let's plays are such a great thing for publishers, most will just let them go on. You are never going to see a day where Blizzard doesn't let people stream Hearthstone. People can watch those videos and still want to play. I think it's like that for most games honestly, but for a few very story focused and driven games like Firewatch or Persona 5, I could see them honestly trying to protect their IP, their writing, story and scenarios deserve to be protected from being freely distributed online IMHO, IF they feel they should anyway.

    I don't think this will have the dire effect people are worried about. Some devs might choose to do it, most probably wont. Just as some devs are very open to people modding their games and some are not.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for scottygrayskull #44 scottygrayskull 9 days ago
    I feel that his videos fall under fair use, and that this is an abuse of DMCA.

    I'm not siding with him mind you. He's a horrible piece of shit. But being a horrible racist doesn't violate copyright. The two things aren't related.

    Precedent has certainly been set, but up until now it's been met with considerable pushback. If we make it okay in this instance, then fair use will continue to be ignored. They can issue a statement denouncing him and what he said, but to encourage abusing a process that's already being scrutinized as being abusable is wreckless. Especially when they encourage people to stream their game in the first place.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Roto13 #45 Roto13 9 days ago
    I'm never going to approve of the abuse of the DMCA. Even against PewDiePie.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for sfalletta #46 sfalletta 9 days ago
    @Roto13 what you shouldn't approve of is your melodramatic use of the word 'abuse'
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for DrCorndog #47 DrCorndog 9 days ago
    I see that a number of people can't distinguish Campo Santo's goal of separating itself from PewDiePie with the means used to attain that goal. Shame Mike's article is missing; it did a good job of discussing the issue.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for brodiejohn13 #48 brodiejohn13 9 days ago
    I don't get it...these liberal arsehats (who support pukiepie) are upset trump is in power and is racist.....BUT, it's against our rights to take down a video and support for a racist let's player. LOGICAL.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Roto13 #49 Roto13 9 days ago
    @sfalletta The DMCA is not meant to take down videos that should be protected under fair use. To use it that way is to abuse it. Deal with it.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for TernBird #50 TernBird 9 days ago
    So many people are latching onto the copyright infringement part of this, but they're overlooking the point: yes, Campo Santo knows it shouldn't resort to a DMCA, but they have no other choice when it comes to getting their videos off of PDP's feed.

    Their main concern is making sure their game, brand, and IP is not associated with PDP in any capacity. Seeing as the man is a jackass (anyone who "accidentally" drop an 'n'-bomb in public is someone who uses it regularly--save me the "not racist" BS), it stands to reason they want to remove the possibility of looking like they support him in any capacity.

    Also: you're all ignoring that Firewatch is their game anyway. Like it or not, copyright owners have the right to determine how their IP and content is presented. It's draconian until you're the one with an IP you want presented in the right way.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for sfalletta #51 sfalletta 9 days ago
    @Roto13
    You are the one complaining about how Campo Santo used DMCA not me, so you should learn to deal with it because it is very presumptuous to tell a developer how they should or should not apply DMCA to protect their intellectual property.Edited 2 weeks ago by sfalletta
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Lord-Bob-Bree #52 Lord-Bob-Bree 8 days ago
    I suppose the "proper" way to do this would have been for Campo Santa to tell PDP that he was no longer allowed to have videos of their games, and then issue the DMCA notice if he didn't comply. In the end, though, it just cuts to the chase.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Chillanodon #53 Chillanodon 8 days ago
    LOOK AT VOLTAIRE OVER HERE:

    "If you're someone who's afraid that a video game company can now come after you for saying racist remarks"

    SUBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION USED WITHOUT PROPER QUOTES AROUND DESCRIPTION. FOUL ARGUMENT! CORRECTION:

    'If you're afraid that Microsoft may disable your Windows license because you make remarks they impute as racist while playing on Xbox Live...'

    "while playing a video game"

    HOW ABOUT 'WHILE DOING PRACTICALLY ANYTHING WHILE USING THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE IN A MANNER PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED BY THE COMPANY'

    "then maybe you have to reconsider your priorities since they can already come after your video game video for literally any other reason."

    THE PRIORITIES ARE TO RAISE HOLY HELL WHENEVER THEY EXERCISE THEIR POWER IN A FASHION THAT'S BOTH FAR FROM NORMATIVE AND LIKELY TO ENCOURAGE OTHER COMPANIES TO DO SO AS WELL!

    "And if you're wondering why corporations and private interests have so much power over your creative output, as many fair use advocates argue in regards to video game videos, then maybe you should reconsider how you feel about a free market system"

    THANK YOU, OH FRIENDLY CORPORATE COMMUNIST! YOUR EVER-PRESENT SOFT BOOSTING OF OUR FUTURE GOALS WILL BE NOTED FAVORABLY ON YOUR PERMANENT RECORD! MAYBE WE CAN GET YOU A EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH DILDO WITH RAISED BUMPS IN THE SHAPE OF THE COMPANY LOGO!

    "than you do about an indie game studio that doesn't want to associate themselves with an offensive YouTube personality."

    If that was all they wanted not to do they've failed spectacularly at it.

    If they wanted to set normative managerial precedents and associate all streamers with "racism" and set all game studios (read: EA or some future conglomerate) up as the content police, they're going about it exactly as planned.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Ohoni #54 Ohoni 8 days ago
    Regardless of how one feels about this youtuber's word usage, this is an abuse of DMCA takedowns. Yes, Nintendo has also done this, but that was an abuse as well, and has only not been clarified because nobody has taken it all the way in court like H3H3 recently did. I do not support that Youtuber, but neither do I support abusing DMCA take-downs as a method of vigilante justice. Just don't watch his channel if you don't support him, I certainly never have.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Roto13 #55 Roto13 7 days ago
    @sfalletta I guess if you absolutely refuse to learn what the DMCA is actually for, there's not much point in trying to explain it to you.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for ericede #56 ericede 6 days ago
    The article is completely wrong. This was not about protecting their image. It was about weaponizing DMCA. They didn't request that the content be removed. In fact the content had already been set to private when PDP became aware of their intentions. Campo filed the DMCA anyway. The devs intent is clear in his tweets. He said he was going to reach out to other developers and get them to do the same. That goes beyond protecting your IP. That is an attempt to use DMCAs to shut down his channel. Whether you like PDP or not this is a misuse of DMCA and a dangerous precedent trying to use the law to silence people you don't like.Edited 5 days ago by ericede
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for rodier #57 rodier 3 days ago
    Why is USgamer degrading by posting biased shit opinion like this?

    Who does not read news:
    PDP put down firewatch videos NOT because they WANT to force him, but because he is good guy.
    Why?
    Campo Santo TRIED fill DMCA, but every court they try to send them to hell.
    Why?
    Because Campo Santo idiotic devs put rights to stream and record that game in their agreement and you cant change agreement after sale
    Second reason is perjury. You cant fill DMCA because you hate someone. It will be perjury.
    Third reason - PDP will defend self as fair use and Campo will need to pay at least 1Mio USD to get in court. And because they are small idiots with 1 game so far, there is no chance.

    So yes, I dont like PDP, but he can easily laught on Campo Santo, make 1000 more videos of them and their game and they cant do shit about.
    He didnt he instead toss video of this small shitty company out.

    And do you know what else? Disney already resumed his contract.. so rofl on you.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for rodier #58 rodier 3 days ago
    What is even more funny?
    That He said that nigga word when playing PUBG more than 1 year after doing Firewatch video.
    So yes, Campo niggaz just want popularity for free.
    And he said that N-word not in hate expression.. he said it just like normal person do.. in fast quick way.. no one even stop on it.
    Sign in to Reply

Comments

Close