✩°｡Nessaa⋆⸜ 🎶✮ (k i/a)

Imo, this discussion is getting unnecessarily broad. We do not need Minecraft, Spaceballs, game streaming, parody, or the entire VTuber industry to understand why PLLI are upset with all elements of PANDAVVA. Just look at the actual sequence of events: PANDAVVA covered PLAVE’s song “Pump Up The Volume!” Then, after already creating that very obvious association with PLAVE’s song, PANDAVVA released commercial debut merchandise prominently using “PUMP UP THE VOLUME!” as its tagline. That context matters. If PANDAVVA had never covered PLAVE’s song and independently released merchandise saying “Pump Up The Volume,” then sure, the argument that it is a common phrase would be much stronger. Nobody is saying PLAVE automatically owns every possible use of those words. But that is not what happened here. The prior cover creates an obvious association with PLAVE’s song. So reducing the issue to “commercialization inspired by someone else’s work” leaves out the exact reason people made the connection in the first place. And comparing the merchandise to monetizing a cover does not really answer the criticism either. If PANDAVVA monetizes their PLAVE cover through the appropriate licensing or revenue sharing system, that is one thing. It is explicitly presented as a cover of PLAVE’s work, with PLAVE acknowledged as the original artist. Using wording already associated with the song you covered as branding for a separate commercial product you are selling is a different situation. Does that automatically mean PANDAVVA committed copyright or trademark infringement? No. Short phrases and song titles are complicated from an IP perspective, and whether this actually constitutes infringement would need to be established separately. But that is exactly why I think focusing only on whether it is technically illegal misses a large part of PLLI’s criticism. This is also about acknowledgement, accountability, and commercial etiquette! From PLLI’s perspective, this did not feel like one random misunderstanding that appeared out of nowhere. Their frustration is basically: How many times do concerns have to be raised before someone actually acknowledges them? Why does the issue have to become this big before you finally speak up? That kind of frustration usually does not come from the phrase itself. It comes from the feeling that the concern was raised, dismissed, minimized, or ignored until the issue became too big to avoid. And the argument that “only the IP owner has legal standing, not the fans” does not really answer this. Sure, PLLI are not VLAST. Fans cannot personally determine in a legal sense that PANDAVVA committed copyright infringement.But fans can absolutely question and criticize a creator for commercially using something associated with an artist they support. Those are two different things. tbh, this is probably the easiest part PANDAVVA could have addressed: just acknowledge that you may have handled it badly and apologize. Simply say: “We understand why using ‘Pump Up The Volume!’ for commercial merchandise after covering PLAVE’s song created concern. We should have considered that association more carefully, and WE ARE SORRY.” That is very different from admitting legal liability. Case closed. And if it really took the controversy becoming this big before PANDAVVA finally addressed it, then PLLI’s frustration is not difficult to understand. -------- And you! Yes you! the famous final stage of winning an argument: sending death threats. Congratulations, you definitely showed everyone who the problem is!