I wanted to talk about a little bit more on some of the reactions to uh
what happened I'm by no means trying to stir up any more of it and
ultimately this is my fault I'm the one
responsible and the more time that passes the more and more I realized how wrong I was but a lot of people's
outrage or uproar about it was pretty interesting maybe you saw this tweet but it's from Sean Vann -
whatever - "We're filing a DMCA takedown of PewDiePie's Firewatch content and any future Campo Santo
games". Followed by "There is a bit of leeway you have to have with the internet when you wake up
every day and make video games there's also a breaking point". "I'm sick of this child getting more and more chances to make money off
what we make". For those who don't know a DMCA claim is
basically a Copyright strike. Umm
It's like a legal action towards your channel. It's a pretty big deal if I get more than three of them then - um -
my channel will shut down. So you could say this is an attack on
me, my livelihood. So it seemed more than just
grandstanding. This seems more like an attack to me. Uh, he also followed with: "I urge other developers and will be reaching out
to folks much larger than us to cut him off from the content that has made him a millionaire".
So basically urging other people to do the same I don't know a lot of people aren't really sure about Let's Plays
It's sort of like a gray area in legal terms, because it's not like we owned the game. We don't own
direct licence to it and I don't think technically we can sell
the video
with us in it and there hasn't really been a trial that tests this as well. There hasn't really been a trial that confirms
"Yes, Let's Plays are protected by fair use you can't do
copyright takedown claims on them". But generally there hasn't been a case because developers
uh, benefit
massively from Let's Players or streamers this is pretty commonly known
eh,
Minecraft Is a billion dollar
title because of streamers, largely because of streamers and YouTubers.
Same thing you know PUBG, I don't think It probably would not be even nearly as big without streamers and
developers know this. This is pretty commonly known and that's why even
though, yes we are making money through your game it's still seen as something positive
but it is sort of interesting to me this case in particular because Sean's game is very much
probably the most linear game
in question. You know, out of all games that could have been
talked about you know to me it's really interesting how
a game like Firewatch talks about this
in a way like this because Firewatch Is an extremely linear game it's almost like a walking
simulator. It's not a bad game, I quite enjoyed it, but
arguably if you play Call of Duty and someone else play Call of Duty you're gonna get a completely different experience
almost no matter what
but if you play Firewatch
you're probably gonna have the exact same experience no matter who plays it, so you could say "okay, well what's the difference between
playing the game yourself rather than just watching someone else play it then" and ya, no, it's a fair point
and I think especially with Firewatch in mind. Personally I think either way is wrong. You're bringing in more attention to the game. People
generally want to play the games themself almost no matter what. Even games that are pretty much just a
story base where you click through and read people want to play themselves and Firewatch compared to other walking simulators like the Walking Dead or
Life is Strange it doesn't really have choices that leads to different outcomes or different endings so it's it's it is very
much on the line and I think there was some controversy as well with this game in the past because people
refunded the game because it was so short and
they didn't like the ending and people were streaming it so they were just worried that people were just watching it instead of buying it
So I think it's you know out of all people to come out of make a statement like this I think it's interesting that
this is the developer that did it. That's pretty much my point here "furthermore we're complicit and
I'm sure we made money off the 5.7 million views that video has and that's something for us to think about". now
Let's get into the meat of this
Lot of people are saying I've seen a lot of tweets saying
they're not abusing Copyright laws Let's Plays because Let's Plays aren't fair use.
Get over it. I can't say for certainty that it is protected against fair use
but I'm fairly certain and most
legal expert's would say the same. There are some arguments against it but if you watch my video you know that I'm adding my
commentary to it I'm giving my insight to it whoever watches me play it is gonna experience it
differently than anyone that plays it themselves. That's just how it is. There was an interesting article about this as well
saying "Having seen some of Pewdiepies 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 Vaenaman's case at all,
rather it gives Pewdiepie a lot more leverage to claim that any such take down would be abusive and possibly even a violation of
DMCA's against misrepresentations.
I've also seen other legal experts
claiming that the video isn't protected by fair use Let's Plays aren't protected by fair use
No one can really say for certain, that's why it's a gray area.
There are other legal experts saying that Let's Play's aren't legal "Firewatch DMCA's are
legal dev's can easily destroy Youtube channel and the law isn't how you want it listen here". The thing though that a lot of people
pointed out shortly after these tweets were made
was that
they have a stream policy on their website. This is literally if you go to Firewatchgame.com/about.
It says "can I stream this game can I make money off of those streams?". "Yes.
"we love that people stream and share their experience in the game. You are free to monetize your videos as well". So people
pointed this out but
there's still arguments against saying "it doesn't matter because Let's Plays still aren't fair use
so they can do whatever they want". And I would - I would agree because basically Sean said he will
he will strike down any one of my future Let's Plays and the current the past one, but the thing is
that doesn't mean he can go back and revoke from the old one. Do you know what I'm saying?
Basically Sean has the right to strike any video that I upload from this point because he's publicly said that
that's what he's gonna do but you can't retroactively let go and say you know what I'm revoking this license
because you are a racist garbage or whatever. That's not how DMCA work and I'm pretty sure
that in that form of selection bias is not gonna hold up in court imagine if
I made some
artwork and I told people "hey you're free to use his artwork go ahead everyone"
people start using the artwork and then I point to some people
and I say "no" and file a copyright law
dispute against that. Doesn't really add up does it? So regardless if
Let's Play is fair use or not this argument of claiming my video is incorrect. Most likely if my
video gets striked I can't really do anything about it, Youtube really doesn't
they're sort of washing their hands around these copyright things, they kind of want
to leave out of it, I mean they've been sued enough so it sort of makes sense. I imagine if a case like this toes to court then there's not gonna be much leverage for it.
If anything it would be a huge waste of time and money for Sean and his developing team. When I saw these tweets I
immediately privatized the video out of respect for his request
but
my video got claimed anyway. They got the strike anyway, which is pretty disappointing
to be honest. As far as I'm concerned I didn't use any abusive language in this video.
I didn't do anything that I think would be considered offensive. This video was uploaded as far as I know two years ago and I
gotta say I'm pretty disappointed.
Also in people defending this that I know personally have had problem with DMCA request -
take down requests as well. Whether you like me or
Mr. Vanaman, these laws are made to for people to take down content and whenever there's power to do
so it's going to be abused and especially when the reason to take down the content has nothing to do with copyright
it's
it sort of shows that. I think these laws are important
for people, for artists to protect artists work and what they do and
I think and that's why I think it's really dangerous to make these sort of claims and to do these sort of copyright claims for
no real valid reason, no matter what you think of me. If you have a problem with any content online or any video being up
you're are free to tweet me I will probably see it and
I will respect that request. I did get a
request from another developer asking the same thing "hey can you delete this video" and I did and I wouldn't have any problem
to have done the same with this video
I have a huge amount of respect for developers and what they do. I know my
work would not have been possible without them and
that's why I would never go against that. I could probably fight this in court and I would probably win
but I decided to just delete the video and not waste everyone's time more about this.
Like I said, this - everything about this was my fault the
whole drama I'm the one starting it but I still think it's an interesting
discussion to talk about and I think it's important that we don't abuse these laws because they exist to protect artists not to
make any form of censorship or
abusive claims. This video is not meant to attack Sean or his development team or anyone
I just think it's important to talk about these things. Like I said, I thought Firewatch was a really great game and
I wish him all the best in the future with their next title.