Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mikhail_Edoshin | Hacker News Reader

So there were no copyright infringement but now there is, and only by that guy, other streamers are OK? That's funny. This is a misuse of the law and a markedly unethical behavior, why nobody sees it?

View on HN

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In this case FWD allows this explicitly for youtubers in general, but have withdrawn this permission to PDP in particular because they do not wish to see their product associated with a racist.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.

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.

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.

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.

> That said, they still should have provided him with notice before filing the DMCA takedown request

Why?

They gave permission on the site to anyone, he's actually has a pretty good case here.

Retroactive punishment is forbidden by the DMCA.

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.

> they should have warned him first to remove it himself

Why?

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?

Good form is for every day people, it's not for people behaving like massive fucking bellends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com