PewDiePie Is Inexcusable But DMCA Takedowns Are Not the Way To Fight Him (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Felix Kjellberg, better known as PewDiePie, is the most popular YouTuber in the world. He's gotten himself into another controversy, this time for shouting the n-word while livestreaming a video game. The 27-year-old Swede has repeatedly been criticized for hate speech, and just last month said he would no longer make Nazi jokes after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia turned violent. But while playing PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds on Sunday, Kjellberg, who has over 57 million subscribers on YouTube, called another player the n-word before erupting into laughter. "What a fucking n****r," he said. "Jeez, oh my god. What the fuck? Sorry, but what the fuck? What a fucking asshole. I don't mean that in a bad way." Kjellberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and has yet to publicly acknowledge the incident.

In response to Kjellberg's use of a racial slur, a number of video game players and developers have condemned the creator. Sean Vanaman, the co-founder of video game company Campo Santo, decided to use copyright law to push back against Kjellberg. On Twitter, he said he was filing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown request against the famous YouTuber regarding a video in which Kjellberg plays Campo Santo's game Firewatch. There are compelling reasons to [remove hate speech from major internet platforms] by any means necessary, but DMCA overreach is among the least compelling options, considering that it unilaterally puts power into the hands of what are essentially uninvolved parties and allows for little arbitration or defense on the part of those who have their content removed.

Comments

Who gives a shit?

[Opportunist]

Seriously, who?

Re: Who gives a shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

This matters because the DMCA is being used for the purpose of censorship. That's an abuse of the DMCA and, as I noted in another comment, creimer has used the same tactics here on Slashdot. It's not especially rare, and it's an abuse of the law. The DMCA exists to prevent copyright infringement, not as a tool for censorship. I know who PewDiePie is, but I don't care about him. I do care that the law is being abused to censor unpopular views and free speech, because that can easily be turned to censor other speech and viewpoints. I have no sympathy that PewDiePie is getting backlash for using the n-word, but I do care about protecting free speech.

Re: Who gives a shit?

[aardvarkjoe]

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Which means he has every right to utilize DMCA to have an account removed, by Slashdot's own fucking admission.

I don't see anything in there that says that you have permission to misuse the DMCA to censor trolls.

For anyone who is curious (I looked it up, since I was), apparently somebody registered a 'cdreimer' account to troll creimer. This isn't terribly surprising, because he not only posts a lot of nonsense, but also engages in flamewars with trolls, which is the one sure way to get more people to troll you. Instead of acting like an adult and ignoring the troll, apparently he filed a DMCA complaint to get the cdreimer account removed.

Since that account wasn't infringing upon his copyrights, that is of course complete bull.

Re: Who gives a shit?

[Bert64]

Watching a game is not the primary method by which a game is usually consumed... He is basically advertising the game, not making it available for anyone else to play.
He's only making controlled sections of the output of the game available, not the game itself.

Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

How is what PewDiePie said "inexcusable?" Ever said something in a heated moment you regret later? That's all the happened. A slip of the tongue. It happens. Fucking deal with it.

Oh, wait, I accidentally swore. Clearly all my YouTube videos should have DMCA take-downs against them over a single fleeting expletive.

You may not like PewDiePie, but stop trying to pretend he did anything objectionable. He didn't.

Re: Oh please

[Pinky's Brain]

Wrong != inexcusable.

Re:Oh please

[Kohath]

Yes. Too many people have too much invested in milking grievances and hunting witches for such a thing to be excused.

If people started accepting apologies and being tolerant and magnanimous and kind and understanding, we'd all live happier, more peaceful lives.

And then what would community organizers do to become rich and powerful? Who would pay professional protestors? What would diversity coordinators do at colleges? How would you get out the racial vote to elect the same old politicians to continue to fail to solve any problems?

Re: Oh please

[piojo]

Maybe if he hadn't previously spouted racist, white supremacist nonsense, it would be excusable.

The thing is, he didn't. If you're referring to the little media outrage about him some months ago, that was all cherry-picked to demonstrate something quite different than what he actually said. He published a video making fun of neo-nazis, and someone cut it to look like something else entirely.

It's because of that episode that I'm *more* inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's been targeted by false accusations before, so isn't it likely there's some spin on the story this time? (For example, is the word "n****r" used the same way in his country as it is in the US? If not, that would be one potential fact that was left out of the story. I know "cunt" is used much differently in some parts of the UK, and it would be wrong to assume "n****r" has exactly the same baggage in Sweden as in the US.)

Re:Oh please

[BlueStrat]

Yes. Too many people have too much invested in milking grievances and hunting witches for such a thing to be excused.

If people started accepting apologies and being tolerant and magnanimous and kind and understanding, we'd all live happier, more peaceful lives.

And then what would community organizers do to become rich and powerful? Who would pay professional protestors? What would diversity coordinators do at colleges? How would you get out the racial vote to elect the same old politicians to continue to fail to solve any problems?

So much this.

In gaming lingo, all the people who get triggered over a word (or image, flag, symbol, etc etc) are being *farmed* by the professional shit-stirrers like those mentioned in your post, who are only looking to gain wealth and political power from all the the hatred, division, and strife they incite, to the greater misery of everyone.

Holy crap, people! This is kindergarten stuff! Here's a little milk-and-graham-crackers quiet-time story.

"Little kindergartner Johnny pulls Sally's hair whenever the teacher isn't looking, and she screams and cries. He keeps pulling her hair and laughing at her screaming and crying. Then, Sally decides to *not* scream and cry. Little Johnny isn't enjoying pulling Sally's hair any more and stops doing it."

The End

Take the power to offend away and the offender loses interest when he isn't rewarded with the reaction he wants.

Now, go finger-paint something and stop empowering haters!

Strat

harden up

[Anonymous Coward]

No one ever got their feelings hurt and woke up the next morning with Leprosy. This 'hate speech' crusade is just ridiculous.

Not advocating hate speech, but...

[enigma32]

I'm not advocating hate speech, but why is there the need to censor "n****r" when "fucking asshole" was printed in plaintext?

These are all just words. It's no different than "chink" or "beaner". By censoring them we elevate their status and perpetuate the undesirable meaning behind them. It's just stupid.

Even slashdot required me to censor it to post. wtf.

Re:What about the Rap Videos?

[Hognoxious]

Because when crackers say it, it's cultural appropriation.

Symptom of a problem.

[Gravis Zero]

DMCA overreach is among the least compelling options, considering that it unilaterally puts power into the hands of what are essentially uninvolved parties and allows for little arbitration or defense on the part of those who have their content removed.

It seems like if a DMCA takedown is so powerful then it shouldn't be blindly accepted. This is just a symptom of the problem that is the DMCA.

Publicly acknowledged

[tfranzese]

"publicly acknowledge the incident"? Except for that apology video he posted shortly after ending the stream the same day.

Point even more valid

[Roger W Moore]

If the country had both a history and a present-day pattern of oppressing "fucking assholes" you might have a point

No, the point is even more valid when you have a history of oppression. History has shown time and time again that the way you fight the words and idea of oppression is with better words and ideas.

You cannot get rid of entrenched attitudes like racism, sexism and other bigotry by suppressing it. All this does is hide it from view where it festers and erupts and then all of a sudden you wake up to find you have a sexist, racist Oompa Loompa as a leader.

The idea is so old there is even incorporated into a children's fairy tale. Remember sleeping beauty where the king bans all spinning wheels but she still gets pricked because the first time she sees one she is so curious about it?

The takedown is false/invalid anyways

[Khyber]

The game company gave explicit license to everyone to stream game play and monetize it, and made no mention on that page of any limitations.

Thus, PDP owned copyright to that video, as a unique public performance, by implicit license from the game company. The DMCA takedown is false and thus actionable.

PDP should be smart and sue the ever living fuck out of the game company.

Sticks and stones...

[wkwilley2]

may break your bones, but someone will always offend a feminist

Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER

[MoarSauce123]

Black lives matter never implied that other lives do not matter. That aspect is only implied by those who do not want to or have not understood what that movement is about.

Re:#BLACKLIVESMATTER

[Northdot]

It seems pretty self evident that what the BLM hashtag means (at least originally) is "black lives matter as much as white lives", as fueled by the many instances of blacks being killed in questionable circumstances, with no consequences at all for those that caused the deaths.

So rebutting this by saying #AllLivesMatter comes across (to some) like saying "all houses matter", ignoring the fact that one of the houses is burning.

While I personally think 90% of social justice political correctness is bullshit, criticizing BLM while ignoring the context of where it's coming from seems misguided.