PewDiePie - troll, racist, both?

[Jacob]

You'll understand when you grow up.

I have to agree with the Brain on this. How is asking someone to take down a video "retroactive"?

[DGuller]

You'll understand when you grow up.

I have to agree with the Brain on this. How is asking someone to take down a video "retroactive"?

Because they had the (implicit) permission to create the video when they created the video.  To ask them to take it down years later is saying "nope, you didn't have the permission to create the video after all".

I guess the disagreement is that I view retroactive as to the time of content creation, whereas you view it as to the time of content viewing.  The problem that I see with your interpretation, if I got it right, is that in a sense you never own the content that you create, even if you originally had the permissions to create it.  Your content is always leased from the publisher, who can always terminate the lease for any reason and with no recourse on your part.

[Razgovory]

Is Guller crazy enough to explain abstract concepts to dogs? 

I give history lessons to cats.  Of course, those cats an not dogs, and cats need to know about the emperor Galba.  The cat is now well versed in the demarcation problem.

[Ed Anger]

Is Guller crazy enough to explain abstract concepts to dogs? 

I give history lessons to cats.  Of course, those cats an not dogs, and cats need to know about the emperor Galba.  The cat is now well versed in the demarcation problem.

Mewicus

[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.

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.

Oh is the blurb about the YouTube policy? I agree that's a different issue.

[grumbler]

Because they had the (implicit) permission to create the video when they created the video.  To ask them to take it down years later is saying "nope, you didn't have the permission to create the video after all".

I guess the disagreement is that I view retroactive as to the time of content creation, whereas you view it as to the time of content viewing.  The problem that I see with your interpretation, if I got it right, is that in a sense you never own the content that you create, even if you originally had the permissions to create it.  Your content is always leased from the publisher, who can always terminate the lease for any reason and with no recourse on your part.

The authors don't need anyone's permission to make the video, and the video was made.  It still exists - there was no retroactive measure to go back in time and undo the making of it.

It is the further broadcast of the video that is being banned.  That's not retroactive at all.  All previous viewings of it still happened.

And, yes, bar fair use and contractual agreements, all use of copyrighted material is always at the discretion of the copyright holder.  That's what copyright means.

[The Brain]

You'll understand when you grow up.

I have to agree with the Brain on this. How is asking someone to take down a video "retroactive"?

Because they had the (implicit) permission to create the video when they created the video.  To ask them to take it down years later is saying "nope, you didn't have the permission to create the video after all".

I don't see it. I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

[Berkut]

You'll understand when you grow up.

I have to agree with the Brain on this. How is asking someone to take down a video "retroactive"?

Because they had the (implicit) permission to create the video when they created the video.  To ask them to take it down years later is saying "nope, you didn't have the permission to create the video after all".

Uhhh, no. No. No, that is not it at all.

The video is a thing, it exists, and it is, every day, creating value for the person who put it up, and part of that value is derived from the IP of the copyright holder.

They may have given permission to create the video, and they have given permission to allow people to watch the video, but that permission is completely at THEIR discretion.

They can withdraw it at any time they feel that it is no longer in their interests to allow it to continue, and at that point continuing to generate income at their (perceived) expense is a violation of their copyright.

This seems very simple to me.

If you get your way, then the IP owners will have no choice but to deny the use of their IP across the board.

Demanding that they either ALWAYS or NEVER grant that exclusion is not going to end with the ALWAYS choice.

[alfred russel]

Agree Berkut. It is like if you take an at will job. You quit your job, you incur expenses to relocate to the city in which the job is located, and then once you do so, they revoke the job offer. It is their right to do so, and you have no recourse against them.

[grumbler]

Agree Berkut. It is like if you take an at will job. You quit your job, you incur expenses to relocate to the city in which the job is located, and then once you do so, they revoke the job offer. It is their right to do so, and you have no recourse against them.

  Except that it is not like that at all, Marti.