5 ms·

A developer, if they so wish, can allow third-parties the use of their property in some use-cases that are beyond "critique or satire". In this case FWD allows

A developer, if they so wish, can allow third-parties the use of their property in some use-cases that are beyond "critique or satire". In this case FWD allows this explicitly for youtubers in general, but have withdrawn this permission to PDP in particular because they do not wish to see their product associated with a racist. How is this a "misuse of the law"? Please explain.

dogma1138 9y ago
He isn't a racist he's an idiotic troll. Campo gave everyone a non exclusive permission to stream their game. PDP didn't even stream their game in this incident they've just retroactively decided to DMCA flag him. PDP maybe a cunt but the developers here just decided to be dicks.
Mikhail_Edoshin 9y ago
So they did this because PDP is "racist" (which is, btw, too deep a conclusion to draw from a single word said in a heat of a virtual battle) but used a DMCA notice that implies that the copyrighted content is used without the owner's permission, i.e. stolen. Clearly, it is not stolen, so they're lying and falsely accusing PDP of a crime. They're totally free to sue PDP, but on what he actually did with all the due process (a defender, etc.). What they chose to do is an abuse of power. The fact that the person being abused is not, perhaps, all pleasant, and they don't want to associate with him, does not excuse the abuse.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  They are the owner of the copyrighted content (the game imagery). They revoked permission. Thus it was being used without the owner's permission. The DMCA request is perfectly valid. That said, they still should have provided him with notice before filing the DMCA takedown request.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > That said, they still should have provided him with notice before filing the DMCA takedown request Why?
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    They gave permission on the site to anyone, he's actually has a pretty good case here. Retroactive punishment is forbidden by the DMCA.
ssijak 9y ago
Even if they wanted to remove him the rights to use their game, they should have warned him first to remove it himself and if he did not comply then it will be somewhat moral to dmca him. Without warning he did not break dmca because they say on their website that it is ok to stream their game for everyone.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > they should have warned him first to remove it himself Why?
  - detaro 9y ago
    Because it's good form to tell someone if you intend to take a right you granted them away before you use legal tools against them?
    - DanBC 9y ago
      Good form is for every day people, it's not for people behaving like massive fucking bellends.

dogma1138 9y ago

He isn't a racist he's an idiotic troll. Campo gave everyone a non exclusive permission to stream their game. PDP didn't even stream their game in this incident they've just retroactively decided to DMCA flag him. PDP maybe a cunt but the developers here just decided to be dicks.

Mikhail_Edoshin 9y ago

So they did this because PDP is "racist" (which is, btw, too deep a conclusion to draw from a single word said in a heat of a virtual battle) but used a DMCA notice that implies that the copyrighted content is used without the owner's permission, i.e. stolen. Clearly, it is not stolen, so they're lying and falsely accusing PDP of a crime. They're totally free to sue PDP, but on what he actually did with all the due process (a defender, etc.). What they chose to do is an abuse of power. The fact that the person being abused is not, perhaps, all pleasant, and they don't want to associate with him, does not excuse the abuse.

SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
They are the owner of the copyrighted content (the game imagery). They revoked permission. Thus it was being used without the owner's permission. The DMCA request is perfectly valid. That said, they still should have provided him with notice before filing the DMCA takedown request.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > That said, they still should have provided him with notice before filing the DMCA takedown request Why?
- dogma1138 9y ago
  They gave permission on the site to anyone, he's actually has a pretty good case here. Retroactive punishment is forbidden by the DMCA.

ssijak 9y ago

Even if they wanted to remove him the rights to use their game, they should have warned him first to remove it himself and if he did not comply then it will be somewhat moral to dmca him. Without warning he did not break dmca because they say on their website that it is ok to stream their game for everyone.

DanBC 9y ago
> they should have warned him first to remove it himself Why?
- detaro 9y ago
  Because it's good form to tell someone if you intend to take a right you granted them away before you use legal tools against them?
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Good form is for every day people, it's not for people behaving like massive fucking bellends.