Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You lost me when you started arguing that a corporation's opinion on whether something is beneficial to their sales and marketing should have any bearing whatsoever on what someone is allowed to publish.

You also clearly didn't watch the video. A youtuber shows a modded game being run on an emulator, he's adhering to publicly posted policies on what they consider to be fair use, Nintendo went out of their way to be retaliatory (issuing two separate copyright strikes instead of one, and then when he emailed them asking to resolve the situation, did not respond but instead issues dozens more takedowns...including one of him just playing the regular, unmodded game.)

If you want to see extreme examples of this: "ag-gag" laws in the midwest states where there are criminal penalties for disseminating video from slaughter houses that counters the industry's marketing efforts that portray the process as humane and painless, when the process is neither, and in fact employees go out of their way to be abusive to the animals.

Individual free speech is critical to balance the incredible power corporations now have, especially post Citizens United.

What's next? Car companies being able to take down car review videos where the reviewer doesn't tow the line? Or someone is using their car in a way the car company doesn't like? Or modding it to have more power? Or using a scan tool to turn on a feature it didn't come programmed to do originally? Taking down news videos where someone uses a dorF G-350 pickup truck to ram a bunch of pedestrians, because it might look bad for their company?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: