So Firewatch developer Sean Vanaman set an extremely dangerous precedent yesterday. After the entire PewDiePie “N” word debacle:
Am I the only one that thinks abusing YouTube’s copyright infringement mechanisms as a way to enforce your political ideology or your opinion on what is wrong and what is right as being morally reprehensible? Imagine being a content creator and having a developer decide they don’t like something you said during a gameplay video removing your video and closing down your YouTube channel. And yes you did read his Tweets correctly: Sean Vanaman wanted to DMCA takedown PewDiePie’s content because he did not like what he said during the live stream. And Sean’s giant leap of logic for him to come to this legal conclusion? That PewDiePie playing their game is somehow forcing them to endorse him and support the things he says while playing online. Even though he did not even use the word while playing their game.
But in a great twist of irony, it seems Sean does not know what is being said on their games own website. I might not be a legal expert. But if Sean Vanaman and Campo Santo file for a DMCA takedown on PewDiePie’s videos it would mean that they are swearing under penalty of perjury that their DMCA takedown request isn’t malicious and is against someone infringing on their copyrighted material. Filing a DMCA takedown because someone said the “N” word on stream is malicious and certainly does not violate any DMCA policy I have heard of before. I might be wrong though, so please correct me if I am wrong. But here is a helpful hint to developers like Campo Santo and Sean Vanaman. Remember what happened to Digital Homicide when they tried to censor commentary about their game they disagreed with? The internet remembers….
[Editorial Note:] I cannot think of a single developer that has looked good filing a false DMCA. Nevermind winning one on legal grounds.