PewDiePie - troll, racist, both?

[The Brain]

To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?

A more general comment: I know that millenials have an unlimited sense of entitlement, but I don't see an obvious reason for grown-ups to play along. If I want to use someone else's property and I can't rely on implicit consent (because what I want to do is too important) then I talk to them about what I want to do and ask their permission. Do people ever talk these days? If you're in business act like a businessman.

[Eddie Teach]

If you're in business act like a businessman.

Carry a briefcase, smoke and keep a mistress on the side?

[The Brain]

If you're in business act like a businessman.

Carry a briefcase, smoke and keep a mistress on the side?

At least I got a gray flannel suit.

[Malthus]

But you're talking about forgiveness from God. God gets to set all those prerequisites. He also gets to take vengeance and do other things people don't get to do.

God handed the keys, to bind and to loose, to his Church (if you are Catholic).

As stated:

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

[Emphasis]

He already set them: to be forgiven your sins, you have to do the whole confession-penance thing (this is one of the things Protestants don't agree with).

[DGuller]

To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?

The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.

[grumbler]

The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.

How is that retroactive?  They are telling you that you cannot use their copyrighted material moving forward, not that you couldn't use it in the past.

Maybe retroactive mans something different in accountant than it means in English?

[The Brain]

To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?

The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.

How? Explain it like you would to a small child, or a golden retriever.

[Eddie Teach]

Is Guller crazy enough to explain abstract concepts to dogs? 

[celedhring]

Non-enforcement of your IP is a surefire way to lose your right to enforce it later - at least in Spanish IP law. But I believe most streamers do actually sign licensing contracts - just free ones. I have seen it done for people streaming non-videogame content, at least. These contracts contain pretty wide-ranging stipulations for the removal of the license.

[Jacob]

To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?

The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.

If it was retroactive they'd demand compensation for past use.

[The Brain]

Is Guller crazy enough to explain abstract concepts to dogs? 

Crazy like a fox.

[Jacob]

Having come across this article I'm a little more concerned with how things are balanced.

The DCMA takedown request was issued and youtube complied. So far so good. However, youtube policy is such that if this happens twice more then Kjellberg's channel and everything on it will be taken down and he'll essentially be banned from youtube.

So essentially any three companies (or one company subject to three or more videos) can essentially permanently shut down a streamer seemingly at will. That does seem a bit unbalanced to me. Kjellberg does make a decent point, IMO:

Whether you like me or Mr. Vanaman, these laws are created for people to take down content and whenever there's power to do so, it's going to be abused. Especially when the reason to take down the content has nothing to do with copyright.

It'll be interesting to see where this goes as this has the potential to have fairly wide repercussions for streaming. It may drive some business to Twitch as well.

[garbon]

I don't get the blurb. Where is the abuse? Also, makes sense if you want to not have your content associated with someone you think can be damaging to your brand.

[Jacob]

I don't get the blurb. Where is the abuse? Also, makes sense if you want to not have your content associated with someone you think can be damaging to your brand.

That if you don't like them you for whatever reason you can potentially get their entire business shut down (which on the face of it seems potentially abusive to me), rather than simply stopping them from using your material specifically (which I think is completely reasonable).

Though that said - and playing off something the Brain said earlier - if you have substantial business interests in playthroughs, maybe moving forward it would behoove you to get some sort of agreement with the content owners that in the case of a disagreement you'll take down the content voluntarily without them resorting to a DCMA or whatever.

It'll be interesting to see where the industry settles after this.

[DGuller]

To elaborate, say you stream company A's content under implicit consent, and then company A tells you to stop streaming their stuff from date B. Then you stop streaming their stuff from date B and no one is suing you for what happened with implicit consent and you get to keep the profits from the streaming you did under consent. You simply can't stream company A's content after date B. I don't see where things get retroactive?

The part where they ask you to take down all videos is the retroactive one.

How? Explain it like you would to a small child, or a golden retriever.

You'll understand when you grow up.