City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue(kotaku.com)
kotaku.com
City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
https://kotaku.com/workers-resources-steam-pc-dmca-takedown-communism-1850125125
131 comments
These are apparently false DMCA letters. Attribution or payments aren’t really relevant. According to the article, the person filing the claims has no ownership of the copyright. Even if they were being ripped off (which it doesn’t seem like they are) that wouldn’t give them ownership of the copyright.
The person is claiming rights to a version of the game not yet released because they wrote a game guide about how to do it and the game creators agreed to credit him in the new IP. This has led to him filing the DMCA requests and initiating a claim against the new product. The DMCA requests appear to be retaliatory. That's my understanding from the minimal information provided in the article.
Note however we are getting one side of this story -- the developers. I have no idea what is going on and it is surprising how many times things swing around when both parties are heard (the Doom Eternal soundtrack issues come to mind)[0].
[0] https://medium.com/@mickgordon/my-full-statement-regarding-d...
Note however we are getting one side of this story -- the developers. I have no idea what is going on and it is surprising how many times things swing around when both parties are heard (the Doom Eternal soundtrack issues come to mind)[0].
[0] https://medium.com/@mickgordon/my-full-statement-regarding-d...
Regarding the DOOM Eternal Soundtrack, no reasonable person should have every believed the original story as claimed by Stratton in the first place. Unfortunately, taken as a whole gamers are a toxically childish and entitled community and it was all too easy to weaponize them against Gordon.
Regardless of what people should have done, or did do, it serves as a stark lesson for everyone to never take a one-sided story (without accompanied compelling evidence) at face value.
"They" implies multiple, and you are starting the sentence with a singular "the person", and finish the sentence with singular "him". Just stop playing stupid grammar games.
> "They" implies multiple
No. It doesn't.
Please, learn English.
No. It doesn't.
The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf
The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) not only accepts singular they, they also use the form in their definitions.
And the New Oxford American Dictionary (Third Edition, 2010), calls singular they ‘generally accepted’ with indefinites, and ‘now common but less widely accepted’ with definite nouns, especially in formal contexts.
Please, learn English.
Well, one can cherry-pick one's authority on grammar, but any online translator will translate "They walk" to "Ils marchent". One also wouldn't write "they is", so, yes, it's a plural. At least, a sentence should be consistent and not intersperse "they" with "him".
I suspect OP is trying to fight a subconscious bias that the person in question is male, which is why there is inconsistency.
Many of us may also have made a similar assumption–I know I did, and I have certainly made edits to comments in the past where I have unconsciously assumed the gender of someone with no evidence and later noticed. However, we have no idea what gender the user is. English does not have a clear, unambiguous way of saying a third person of an unknown gender, but 'they' is definitely part of common vernacular.
I agree that in general, it's probably better to be consistent internally within a sentence, but the rest of your argument is pretty badly flawed.
With regards to resorting to French to try to argue, 'any online translator' will likely translate 'they walk' to 'ils marchent'. But it's equally possible that it could be 'elles marchent', 'on marche', or with enough context 'il/elle marche' regardless of the gender of the actual person (e.g. 'La personne s'approche dans la nuit. Elle marche avec des pas longs.').
There are also plenty of cases where we refer to singular nouns with plural verbs (e.g. 'the police are on their way').
Prescriptivism in English is an overall unrewarding topic, unlikely to make you any friends, and rarely helps to forward whatever point it is you're trying to make.
I'm not sure that I understand exactly what your point is anyway, how do you propose we refer to someone of unknown gender?
Many of us may also have made a similar assumption–I know I did, and I have certainly made edits to comments in the past where I have unconsciously assumed the gender of someone with no evidence and later noticed. However, we have no idea what gender the user is. English does not have a clear, unambiguous way of saying a third person of an unknown gender, but 'they' is definitely part of common vernacular.
I agree that in general, it's probably better to be consistent internally within a sentence, but the rest of your argument is pretty badly flawed.
With regards to resorting to French to try to argue, 'any online translator' will likely translate 'they walk' to 'ils marchent'. But it's equally possible that it could be 'elles marchent', 'on marche', or with enough context 'il/elle marche' regardless of the gender of the actual person (e.g. 'La personne s'approche dans la nuit. Elle marche avec des pas longs.').
There are also plenty of cases where we refer to singular nouns with plural verbs (e.g. 'the police are on their way').
Prescriptivism in English is an overall unrewarding topic, unlikely to make you any friends, and rarely helps to forward whatever point it is you're trying to make.
I'm not sure that I understand exactly what your point is anyway, how do you propose we refer to someone of unknown gender?
The OED is far from a cherry pick - it's been the dictionary of English longer than any other.
You have the air of that fundamentalist branch that forked off in central north america to worship a prescriptive Elements of (Our) Style by Stunk & Whine.
You have the air of that fundamentalist branch that forked off in central north america to worship a prescriptive Elements of (Our) Style by Stunk & Whine.
P1: Who is that person over there?
P2: The person in the green coat?
P1: Yes, that one.
P2: I don't know them. Do you think Joe knows who they are?
P2: The person in the green coat?
P1: Yes, that one.
P2: I don't know them. Do you think Joe knows who they are?
Indeed, please learn English. Finding vague references to the use of plurals for individuals does not make this part of the vernacular just like 'pluralis majestatis' [1] does not do so.
Language evolves so paper dictionaries from the beginning of the 21st century will not be entirely accurate but given the way some publishers of online dictionaries have taken to using their products to push language revolution instead of following language evolution those old paper books are more accurate guides to how people use it than their ideologically-driven on-line counterparts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
Language evolves so paper dictionaries from the beginning of the 21st century will not be entirely accurate but given the way some publishers of online dictionaries have taken to using their products to push language revolution instead of following language evolution those old paper books are more accurate guides to how people use it than their ideologically-driven on-line counterparts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
English frequently uses they to refer to a singular person.
It's been common place all my life and that's going on six decades now.
'Merkin English, however, likely has prescriptive rails and a lingering shrinking horror stemming from the inappropriate touch of Webster.
> those old paper books are more accurate guides to how people use it than their ideologically-driven on-line counterparts.
Exactly - see the full OED (Oxford English Dictionary) entry on the long historic use of 'they' over seven centuries and the many ways in which it has been (and continuous to be) used contemporaneously both as singular and plural.
It's been common place all my life and that's going on six decades now.
'Merkin English, however, likely has prescriptive rails and a lingering shrinking horror stemming from the inappropriate touch of Webster.
> those old paper books are more accurate guides to how people use it than their ideologically-driven on-line counterparts.
Exactly - see the full OED (Oxford English Dictionary) entry on the long historic use of 'they' over seven centuries and the many ways in which it has been (and continuous to be) used contemporaneously both as singular and plural.
Using archaic latin terms doesn't really strengthen your argument for linguistic evolution.
However, for certain using plurals for individuals of unknown gender is hardly rare, there are hundreds of examples in literature a quick Google away.
It has become (somewhat) popular in the context particularly of discussions on trans rights and 'misgendering' to take the position that the singular they is somehow ungrammatical because people don't want to use it to refer to people whose gender they believe is not unknown.
But it seems to me as though that argument is actually not related to the current discussion.
Here we are simply discussing whether 'they' can be used to refer to a person whose gender is unknown to the speaker at the time, for which there is ample historical, literary evidence that this is commonplace in English, as well as the anecdotal evidence from sibling comments.
However, for certain using plurals for individuals of unknown gender is hardly rare, there are hundreds of examples in literature a quick Google away.
It has become (somewhat) popular in the context particularly of discussions on trans rights and 'misgendering' to take the position that the singular they is somehow ungrammatical because people don't want to use it to refer to people whose gender they believe is not unknown.
But it seems to me as though that argument is actually not related to the current discussion.
Here we are simply discussing whether 'they' can be used to refer to a person whose gender is unknown to the speaker at the time, for which there is ample historical, literary evidence that this is commonplace in English, as well as the anecdotal evidence from sibling comments.
I'm a native English speaker who grew up in the US speaking English through the 80s and 90s. Use of 'they' as a gender-neutral third-person singular was common long before the ideology you're mounting this pathetic attack against.
My perspective: the fan is not "going rogue".
This story is copyright itself brought to its objective conclusion.
Everything here, the petty IP ownership claim, the expectation to have that ownership literally applied, the reactionary griefing, etc. is all baked in to what copyright is at its very foundations. This person is simply playing out the function of copyright as an ideology in their interactions with the game company and its business presence.
They feel they have the right to monopolize the product of their intellectual work, because copyright says so. They feel they can interrupt the sales of the game because copyright says so.
And most important, they feel that they should do these things, because the very existence of copyright, and it's foundational social purpose, tell them it's in their best interest, and their "best interest" is tantamount.
This isn't just a story about copyright, it's copyright itself told as a story, just with real people as subjects.
So let's stop pretending. This is ugly, frivolous, unhelpful, and damaging. This is copyright law. This is an exposition of the social malware that copyright is, was, and ever will be.
This story is copyright itself brought to its objective conclusion.
Everything here, the petty IP ownership claim, the expectation to have that ownership literally applied, the reactionary griefing, etc. is all baked in to what copyright is at its very foundations. This person is simply playing out the function of copyright as an ideology in their interactions with the game company and its business presence.
They feel they have the right to monopolize the product of their intellectual work, because copyright says so. They feel they can interrupt the sales of the game because copyright says so.
And most important, they feel that they should do these things, because the very existence of copyright, and it's foundational social purpose, tell them it's in their best interest, and their "best interest" is tantamount.
This isn't just a story about copyright, it's copyright itself told as a story, just with real people as subjects.
So let's stop pretending. This is ugly, frivolous, unhelpful, and damaging. This is copyright law. This is an exposition of the social malware that copyright is, was, and ever will be.
No, it isn’t. The fact that you can make a false claim in copyright law and cause damage is not an indictment of the system of copyright.
But the reason the above commenter has a point is because it’s unclear if the claim is false. I know nothing about the game, but the article claims this 3rd party spent so much effort creating a new way of playing the game that the game studio meant to implement those changes and even mention this 3rd party in the credits.
So the commenter is right: this person (apparently) created a work (IP) and thinks they have a right to monopolize that work.
The fact that IP law exists in the first place gives this person ground to stand on and do a lot of damage, because the claim has some amount of truth. There is probably not enough truth to his IP claim that this will work for him, but there is enough truth that he’d be mentioned in the credits.
So the commenter is right: this person (apparently) created a work (IP) and thinks they have a right to monopolize that work.
The fact that IP law exists in the first place gives this person ground to stand on and do a lot of damage, because the claim has some amount of truth. There is probably not enough truth to his IP claim that this will work for him, but there is enough truth that he’d be mentioned in the credits.
The part of the game that he "worked on" hasn't been released yet. He has no ground whatsoever to demand rights over the work that he based his own IP on.
The fact that copyright law has evolved into a guilty-until-proven-innocent system so easily abused is, however, an indictment of the system of copyright.
Many people disagree with your statement. The ability to cause something to be removed from sale without due process (e.g. a court weighing in on whether there is a legitimate argument that a finding of infringement has occurred) is abhorrent IMHO. Yes, there is a legal process to reverse this, but the default should never be to act first.
Of course it is an indictment, because such a system needs to be enforcable without doing damage. Although some of that may extend to our system of justice and its huge monetary barriers as well.
Aside from this, false DMCA claims are even used as a vehicle for harassment. Of course that is broken as well...
Aside from this, false DMCA claims are even used as a vehicle for harassment. Of course that is broken as well...
What evidence do you have that the claim is false?
Why would a tiny Slovakian studio loudly proclaim that they are planning to continue fighting this lawsuit, if they believed that they were in the wrong? Especially given that the studio knows they are being directly sued by a lawyer who feels wronged and has a personal vendetta against them. Not even mentioning, above all, that DMCA strikes have been weaponized and abused by powerful players before.
More importantly, I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far the only thing the've done is filing DMCA takedown requests. Which have a notoriously low bar for what constitutes "evidence", thus making it a very useful instrument for harassment.
Unless we discover that the developers simply lied in their official statement on the issue, the current situation seems like a fairly typical DMCA abuse case. Since they are planning to fight the DMCA takedowns, I expect we will find out the truth soon enough.
Disclaimer: I am not trying to write some anti-DMCA manifesto, but just to simply illustrate the reality of the situation. DMCA is an imperfect solution to a problem, and I believe it certainly could be done better and/or improved. However, it is easier said than done, as I don't have a proposal in mind for a better system. Getting rid of DMCA entirely without introducing a replacement mechanism is just going to open up another problematic can of worms, so I am not going to advocate for that until I have something better in mind.
More importantly, I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and so far the only thing the've done is filing DMCA takedown requests. Which have a notoriously low bar for what constitutes "evidence", thus making it a very useful instrument for harassment.
Unless we discover that the developers simply lied in their official statement on the issue, the current situation seems like a fairly typical DMCA abuse case. Since they are planning to fight the DMCA takedowns, I expect we will find out the truth soon enough.
Disclaimer: I am not trying to write some anti-DMCA manifesto, but just to simply illustrate the reality of the situation. DMCA is an imperfect solution to a problem, and I believe it certainly could be done better and/or improved. However, it is easier said than done, as I don't have a proposal in mind for a better system. Getting rid of DMCA entirely without introducing a replacement mechanism is just going to open up another problematic can of worms, so I am not going to advocate for that until I have something better in mind.
It's not about whether they are, as defined by the law, right or wrong. That's the moral definition part.
The implementation part is where the problem lies. If this company is right, then they are being actively harmed by the utility provided in the very law that has defined them to be in the right!
Even if the DMCA takedown feature makes logical sense in the abstract, its thoroughly demonstrated utility for abuse shows us that the law itself fails to implement its own application.
The correct way to resolve this problem is to change the law, such that it is no longer abusable.
The implementation part is where the problem lies. If this company is right, then they are being actively harmed by the utility provided in the very law that has defined them to be in the right!
Even if the DMCA takedown feature makes logical sense in the abstract, its thoroughly demonstrated utility for abuse shows us that the law itself fails to implement its own application.
The correct way to resolve this problem is to change the law, such that it is no longer abusable.
DMCA could be scrapped without too much hassle and it might damage content creators far less than with the system in place.
Without DMCA the wrong people might benefit from the creativity of others, sure. That isn't just the case here and a solution would be nice. But as it stands DMCA affected content very negatively.
The overall parasitic behavior of lawyers is very likely larger than that of those that steal content. It is very rarely being done out of malice and mostly fans anyway.
Without DMCA the wrong people might benefit from the creativity of others, sure. That isn't just the case here and a solution would be nice. But as it stands DMCA affected content very negatively.
The overall parasitic behavior of lawyers is very likely larger than that of those that steal content. It is very rarely being done out of malice and mostly fans anyway.
Thanks, but none of that is evidence. I agree with your assessment but it's all just speculation.
Everything I know about the story is the kotaku article linked. If you are basing your comment off some alternative recounting of events, you will need to share it.
That's why I asked what I asked. Nowhere in the story is there any evidence the DMCA claim is false, except for the word of the developer. Since that developer agreed to give credit for story elements and then rescinded that agreement, it seems a little murkier than just "this guy says so, so they claims must be false." I was wondering if you had any additional information.
DMCA is such an epically shitty law. Only worse is that other countries are happily copying the law too.
Is the DMCA such a shitty law (questions about copyright in general aside), or are companies in shitty in just automatically responding to any DMCA allegation while refusing to invest anything in transparency/process/even-handedness? Basically if you are hit with a copyright or any other sort of terms of service violation, you are stuck spending time and energy trying to communicate with a black box.
Platformists say that this is necessary because transparency will allow bad actors to game the system, but their solution to this to make society into an oppressive panopticon; the cure is worse than the disease. Further, the ignore the degree to which the lack of transparency is already weaponized by bad faith actors.
Platformists say that this is necessary because transparency will allow bad actors to game the system, but their solution to this to make society into an oppressive panopticon; the cure is worse than the disease. Further, the ignore the degree to which the lack of transparency is already weaponized by bad faith actors.
Yes. In general, DMCA was written by rightsholder lawyers early in the internet's lifetime to maximize their power and minimize their responsibilities or damages if they abuse it. The prevalence of systems like Youtube's contentID allowing (often real, but also often flimsily alleged) rightsholders to nigh-unilaterally capture all value on the barest suggestion of unlicensed use is abysmal and calls for a compulsory license system more akin to radio, but rightsholders don't want that because compulsory licenses don't let them negotiate megaprofit deals on their own terms.
The anti-circumvention provsions are also a trash fire. DRM regimes are some hot consumer-hostile bullshit that have no (legal) alternative because the law is behind them and heavily weighted towards the needs and wants of major IP holders. Modern US copyright law is designed primarily to maximize profits and enforcement mechanisms for entrenched interests with little regard for anything that isn't, idk, Beyonce tier of actually needing that much licensing cruft.
There's some joke somewhere about ours being the first few generations to systematically deny ourselves access to our own culture because biglaw is more than happy to cut off its cultural nose to spite its face so long as the money train keeps flowing for the few elites that really benefit from the current system. We have a walled garden that will likely never fall because life is peachy if you're inside the garden already, and anyone outside can't compete with the financial and lobbying muscle of those inside it without operating in legal gray areas at best.
The anti-circumvention provsions are also a trash fire. DRM regimes are some hot consumer-hostile bullshit that have no (legal) alternative because the law is behind them and heavily weighted towards the needs and wants of major IP holders. Modern US copyright law is designed primarily to maximize profits and enforcement mechanisms for entrenched interests with little regard for anything that isn't, idk, Beyonce tier of actually needing that much licensing cruft.
There's some joke somewhere about ours being the first few generations to systematically deny ourselves access to our own culture because biglaw is more than happy to cut off its cultural nose to spite its face so long as the money train keeps flowing for the few elites that really benefit from the current system. We have a walled garden that will likely never fall because life is peachy if you're inside the garden already, and anyone outside can't compete with the financial and lobbying muscle of those inside it without operating in legal gray areas at best.
One single change could have made the DMCA better: Only allow copy "rights" to be assigned to real persons, and grant the original artist a permanent ownership (if I take a photograph I can sell or give you a license to use it, but not in a way that prevents me from continuing to use it). This prevents wealthy classes from financially bulling regular artists out of their own works.
For a large production like a film, that may mean splitting the rights up fractionally to thousands of different people. This would prevent the kind of unilateral rent seeking that squashes artistic creativity - getting a thousand regular actual artists and normal people to agree to sue a harmless fan project is much less likely than an executive suite.
For a large production like a film, that may mean splitting the rights up fractionally to thousands of different people. This would prevent the kind of unilateral rent seeking that squashes artistic creativity - getting a thousand regular actual artists and normal people to agree to sue a harmless fan project is much less likely than an executive suite.
If that's how companies generally operate under the legislation, then yes, it's the legislation that is shitty.
Them's the rules. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Them's the rules. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
In this case, "The players" have a direct influence on what becomes a part of the game, through lobbying, campaign finances and whatever other more shady shit corporations get up to in order to stack the deck in their favor.
At some point you have to realize the players are dictating the game, and then yeah, hate them.
At some point you have to realize the players are dictating the game, and then yeah, hate them.
You also have a direct influence through voting, etc. Besides, the "players" here (content hosting platforms) don't lobby anything, you beef is with large IP holders. But that's not the point.
The legislation is bad, because it neither accounts for normal actors that generally would always follow the passive path of least resistance, nor for bad actors that would actively try to abuse the system.
This is basically being upset over the effects of a natural law. You don't blame rocket for exploding, you blame the idiots who designed it that way. And you definitely don't blame the launchpad operators for poor rocket design - that's not even their job.
The legislation is bad, because it neither accounts for normal actors that generally would always follow the passive path of least resistance, nor for bad actors that would actively try to abuse the system.
This is basically being upset over the effects of a natural law. You don't blame rocket for exploding, you blame the idiots who designed it that way. And you definitely don't blame the launchpad operators for poor rocket design - that's not even their job.
It's a run-time error.
Law is not objective ideology sitting in context-free space. Law is ideology applied, and that very application made explicit. A law defines the very context it exists in.
So we can't just objectively ignore the failure of a law being applied, because a better application of that law must be defined in that law.
Even if a law defines a reasonable ideological mapping (expected behavior), it still needs to define a reasonable application of that mapping.
If, in practice, we see a law being abused, then the solution must be to change that law such that it isn't abusable anymore.
DMCA is an extreme failure, not in defining expected behavior per se, but in defining the domain for implementing behavior. The way DMCA is put into practice circumvents the very ideological behaviors it defined as its expectations, in nearly every case it is applied to.
A version of DMCA that "isn't shitty" would be incapable of such overt and widespread abuse. Clearly the version we have does not meet that criteria.
Law is not objective ideology sitting in context-free space. Law is ideology applied, and that very application made explicit. A law defines the very context it exists in.
So we can't just objectively ignore the failure of a law being applied, because a better application of that law must be defined in that law.
Even if a law defines a reasonable ideological mapping (expected behavior), it still needs to define a reasonable application of that mapping.
If, in practice, we see a law being abused, then the solution must be to change that law such that it isn't abusable anymore.
DMCA is an extreme failure, not in defining expected behavior per se, but in defining the domain for implementing behavior. The way DMCA is put into practice circumvents the very ideological behaviors it defined as its expectations, in nearly every case it is applied to.
A version of DMCA that "isn't shitty" would be incapable of such overt and widespread abuse. Clearly the version we have does not meet that criteria.
This is a totalizing the solution. Why not put pressure on a company, which is easier than getting the law changed? Corporate entities can be herded by other means than regulation. Not that we shouldn't consider changing the law, but that's one of the slowest and least responsive approaches.
> Is the DMCA such a shitty law (questions about copyright in general aside), or are companies in shitty in just automatically responding to any DMCA allegation while refusing to invest anything in transparency/process/even-handedness?
If the law enables said shitty automatic responses, then yes, the law is indeed shitty.
If the law enables said shitty automatic responses, then yes, the law is indeed shitty.
The broken part of the notice/takedown/counter-notice process is that a takedown requires prompt action, but a counter-notice requires a waiting period. Removing the waiting period and relying on damages to make the copyright holder whole seems like a more fair process.
I think the anticircumvention part of the DMCA is what's really shitty, but that's a tangent.
I think the anticircumvention part of the DMCA is what's really shitty, but that's a tangent.
It's a crappy law. It was bought and paid for by the recording industry, which should tell you something.
If the default most common way of complying with a law is shitty behavior, then the law itself is shitty. Good laws don't incentivize bad behavior.
> DMCA mechanics just not works, seems like anybody can claim anything, the service provider is just forced to remove the content and in general not ask or nor the considering if the claims are real.
It works extremely well, if you consider who the beneficiaries are (who also happened to write it).
It works extremely well, if you consider who the beneficiaries are (who also happened to write it).
To me it isn't that horrible process.
You are own a small forum or site. You get DMCA takedown, you take content down and are safe. Send notification to uploader. They disagree. You can put stuff back up. You are not liable for damages after this. And really shouldn't be expected to fight.
Now it is up to the two other parties to fight it out. This is where the system fails, because whole process is long and expensive. But so is any other legal action. Maybe consider fixing that reality first.
You are own a small forum or site. You get DMCA takedown, you take content down and are safe. Send notification to uploader. They disagree. You can put stuff back up. You are not liable for damages after this. And really shouldn't be expected to fight.
Now it is up to the two other parties to fight it out. This is where the system fails, because whole process is long and expensive. But so is any other legal action. Maybe consider fixing that reality first.
The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions.
Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder).
A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court, and if the takedown request was clearly malicious and bogus then the takedown issuer would get a penalty. This approach would still allow a legitimate takedown request, but not be forced the issuer into taking a contested case to court.
Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder).
A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court, and if the takedown request was clearly malicious and bogus then the takedown issuer would get a penalty. This approach would still allow a legitimate takedown request, but not be forced the issuer into taking a contested case to court.
> The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero repercussions.
The takedown process is part of, and only relevant to, the safe-harbor provision.
> Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder).
Because not complying with a correct-in-form takedown puts them outside of the dafe harbor. The uploader can, of course, challenge the false takedown (and the host can decide they don't care about safe harbor, but they won't in practice, nor will they normally care as much about safe harbor against claims by the uploader, so counternotice compliance may be less enthusiastic than takedown compliance.)
> A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court
You can do this. A false takedown is false, damaging statement of fact and actionable as such, it may also be actionable as tortious interference, and a number of other things.
The takedown process is part of, and only relevant to, the safe-harbor provision.
> Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually verify that the takedown request is even from a real person (nevermind the original copyright holder).
Because not complying with a correct-in-form takedown puts them outside of the dafe harbor. The uploader can, of course, challenge the false takedown (and the host can decide they don't care about safe harbor, but they won't in practice, nor will they normally care as much about safe harbor against claims by the uploader, so counternotice compliance may be less enthusiastic than takedown compliance.)
> A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take the takedown issuer to court
You can do this. A false takedown is false, damaging statement of fact and actionable as such, it may also be actionable as tortious interference, and a number of other things.
> Because not complying with a correct-in-form takedown puts them outside of the safe harbor.
Yes, I'm aware - I'm saying that the fact that the law allows truly unvetted takedown requests is silly - there should be some method to disincentivize dodgy takedowns.
> You can do this ...
Realistically it's extremely difficult for this to occur, and the costs often are extremely high (relative to the returns).
Yes, I'm aware - I'm saying that the fact that the law allows truly unvetted takedown requests is silly - there should be some method to disincentivize dodgy takedowns.
> You can do this ...
Realistically it's extremely difficult for this to occur, and the costs often are extremely high (relative to the returns).
> Realistically it’s extremely difficult for this to occur, and the costs often are extremely high (relative to the returns).
Exactly what you say should be available is in the status quo. What is it that you want that is different?
Exactly what you say should be available is in the status quo. What is it that you want that is different?
Not the parent, but one significant impediment to seeking redress for defective takedown notices is that there is only liability and attorneys fees recovery (at least under the DMCA; perhaps not under other areas of law) for knowing misrepresentations. It ought to be strict liability.
> Not the parent, but one significant impediment to seeking redress for defective takedown notices is that there is only liability and attorneys fees recovery (at least under the DMCA; perhaps not under other areas of law) for knowing misrepresentations.
Schemes (including those pre-existing under the common law, as was the case for defamation) giving strict liability for false statements have generally been found to conflict with the First Amendment, and in any case, I’ve literally never heard anyone suggest that the main, or even a major, problem with the DMCA safe harbor was too many takedown notices made with reasonable, good-faith belief in their accuracy that were nonetheless wrong.
So, to me, this seems like an probably-unconstitutional solution to a non-problem.
Schemes (including those pre-existing under the common law, as was the case for defamation) giving strict liability for false statements have generally been found to conflict with the First Amendment, and in any case, I’ve literally never heard anyone suggest that the main, or even a major, problem with the DMCA safe harbor was too many takedown notices made with reasonable, good-faith belief in their accuracy that were nonetheless wrong.
So, to me, this seems like an probably-unconstitutional solution to a non-problem.
> I’ve literally never heard anyone suggest that the main, or even a major, problem with the DMCA safe harbor was too many takedown notices made with reasonable, good-faith belief in their accuracy that were nonetheless wrong.
I have seen the subject come up regarding organizations that carelessly bulk-send DMCA notices based on quick searches for possibly infringing material with little, or sometimes any, effort to confirm. Though I suppose that wouldn't be "good faith". But wouldn't that be a negligence standard? The law says "knowing".
> So, to me, this seems like an probably-unconstitutional solution to a non-problem.
As for the constitutional impediment, that may well be the case, but this is not a non-problem. If the DMCA regime shifts all the costs for a false statement (even if not a "knowingly" false statement) to the recipient (and/or their hosting provider), that's a problem. Maybe not a problem worth upending first amendment precedent over, but a problem nevertheless.
I have seen the subject come up regarding organizations that carelessly bulk-send DMCA notices based on quick searches for possibly infringing material with little, or sometimes any, effort to confirm. Though I suppose that wouldn't be "good faith". But wouldn't that be a negligence standard? The law says "knowing".
> So, to me, this seems like an probably-unconstitutional solution to a non-problem.
As for the constitutional impediment, that may well be the case, but this is not a non-problem. If the DMCA regime shifts all the costs for a false statement (even if not a "knowingly" false statement) to the recipient (and/or their hosting provider), that's a problem. Maybe not a problem worth upending first amendment precedent over, but a problem nevertheless.
> I have seen the subject come up regarding organizations that carelessly bulk-send DMCA notices based on quick searches for possibly infringing material with little, or sometimes any, effort to confirm. Though I suppose that wouldn’t be “good faith”. But wouldn’t that be a negligence standard?
Both in terms of real problem and constitutionality I think a negligence standard is more defensible than strict liability.
> If the DMCA regime shifts all the costs for a false statement (even if not a “knowingly” false statement) to the recipient (and/or their hosting provider), that’s a problem.
To be fair, the DMCA doesn’t shift any costs in that direction; in the absence of the DMCA safe harbor provision that the notice/counternotice process is part of, the notice recipient would be exposed to all the same costs as they can be under that regime, and the host would be exposed to additional costs. The safe harbor regime only gives the host an option which, if followed, removes any liability they would otherwise have, first (on the notice side) to the purported copyright owner, and second (on the counternotice side) to the target of the notice.
Which is why counternotice compliance is spottier than notice compliance: hosts are confident that, even before the safe harbor, they have no liability for an unnecessary takedown, so they don’t care about the part of the safe harbor tied to counternotice compliance.
Both in terms of real problem and constitutionality I think a negligence standard is more defensible than strict liability.
> If the DMCA regime shifts all the costs for a false statement (even if not a “knowingly” false statement) to the recipient (and/or their hosting provider), that’s a problem.
To be fair, the DMCA doesn’t shift any costs in that direction; in the absence of the DMCA safe harbor provision that the notice/counternotice process is part of, the notice recipient would be exposed to all the same costs as they can be under that regime, and the host would be exposed to additional costs. The safe harbor regime only gives the host an option which, if followed, removes any liability they would otherwise have, first (on the notice side) to the purported copyright owner, and second (on the counternotice side) to the target of the notice.
Which is why counternotice compliance is spottier than notice compliance: hosts are confident that, even before the safe harbor, they have no liability for an unnecessary takedown, so they don’t care about the part of the safe harbor tied to counternotice compliance.
Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users. The takedown provision sucks, but its an essential law for the open internet to even exist.
The legal requirement to act instantly on the automatic presumption of the claimants being both right and acting in good faith with no evidence required isn't required to avoid liability. They could have required some higher standard of proof of ownership and as long as they followed the process, YouTube would have the same protection.
The system is specifically designed to be gamed by claimants.
The system is specifically designed to be gamed by claimants.
It works the other way: it let's a site post user content without the user having to prove legal clearance for the content. Without this, there would be no sites allowing users to post nearly anything. In exchange for this freedom, the sites have to agree to some resolution format for when a copyright complaint is triggered.
So the system is not designed to be gamed by claimants. It's designed to give legal protections to hosts of sites. But this is most definitely a carveout to protect sites. Without the law no one would face to liability of hosting user generated content.
So the system is not designed to be gamed by claimants. It's designed to give legal protections to hosts of sites. But this is most definitely a carveout to protect sites. Without the law no one would face to liability of hosting user generated content.
It's not necessarily true that a system that requires a claimant to demonstrate ownership also requires a user to pre-emptively prove it.
You could have a law that provides a safe harbor provision but also requires claims to be honest and backed-up to "some" level of confidence.
The law as it stands does appear to have the possibility of the penalty of perjury for intentional misuse, but, apparently, a comma means that apparently this is actually only applicable to a small part of the claim[1], and as far as I know has never done so. I do not know if this is because the law doesn't make definitions clear enough to demonstrate bad-faith in court (including that comma), or the legal system in general simply doesn't care to enforce the law.
[1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...
You could have a law that provides a safe harbor provision but also requires claims to be honest and backed-up to "some" level of confidence.
The law as it stands does appear to have the possibility of the penalty of perjury for intentional misuse, but, apparently, a comma means that apparently this is actually only applicable to a small part of the claim[1], and as far as I know has never done so. I do not know if this is because the law doesn't make definitions clear enough to demonstrate bad-faith in court (including that comma), or the legal system in general simply doesn't care to enforce the law.
[1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...
The DMCA was passed in 1998.
You do realize we had a fully functioning internet filled with user-generated content before 1998, right?
You do realize we had a fully functioning internet filled with user-generated content before 1998, right?
You don't know your history. The DMCA was passed in 1998 with the express purpose of saving that fully functioning internet, as BBS systems and ISPs were being held liable for vicarious copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement, making the business of operating an ISP legally and financially untenable. There was a realistic danger that no business would continue operating a public ISP under the existing legal framework after notable cases like Playboy Enterprises Inc v Frena. ISPs lobbied legislators in the 104th Congress (1995-96) for legislation that would preserve the open internet by shielding them from that liability for users' actions, and this lobbying directly resulted in the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (aka Safe Harbor) getting written into the DMCA.
> The DMCA was passed in 1998 with the express purpose of saving that fully functioning internet
Given this blatantly incorrect reframing of the DMCA as anything other than being intended to serve the copyright lobby’s interests, it’s hard to believe you’re arguing in good faith.
Given this blatantly incorrect reframing of the DMCA as anything other than being intended to serve the copyright lobby’s interests, it’s hard to believe you’re arguing in good faith.
[deleted]
Yet not one of the biggest sites with user content was formed before the DMCA. Why didn't any of those fully functioning internet user sites dominate? Certainly other, non-user content sites from then were big.
Its almost as if providing safe harbor allowed such sites to grow......
Its almost as if providing safe harbor allowed such sites to grow......
With as much evidence, one can say that it's almost as if the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 allowed it.
Geocities, say, was huge before the DMCA and died after it.
Geocities, say, was huge before the DMCA and died after it.
Geocities had ~1.8M users in Dec 1997. They were often sued for copyright (e.g., here[1]) infringement since then providers were liable. This made it harder for them to raise money, since as copyright holders became more saavy about what companies were doing on the internet, they were increasingly targeting them.
After DMCA when those suits were gone, they raised $$$, became much more valuable, grew, and soon got bought by Yahoo. They went from the 5th most visited to 3rd, even with much more competition. They grew the user base.
The same thing happened to Tripod and Angelfire from that time.
Instead of trying to cherry pick one example, look at all companies before and after. That is the accurate way to see what happened. If you think the safe harbor content protection did not and does not matter, look how hard current companies are pushing to keep Congress from removing such laws.
[1] https://washingtontechnology.com/1996/11/publishers-push-pir...
After DMCA when those suits were gone, they raised $$$, became much more valuable, grew, and soon got bought by Yahoo. They went from the 5th most visited to 3rd, even with much more competition. They grew the user base.
The same thing happened to Tripod and Angelfire from that time.
Instead of trying to cherry pick one example, look at all companies before and after. That is the accurate way to see what happened. If you think the safe harbor content protection did not and does not matter, look how hard current companies are pushing to keep Congress from removing such laws.
[1] https://washingtontechnology.com/1996/11/publishers-push-pir...
None of that automatically means a safe harbor provision can only exist if claimants are able to make obviously bogus claims without redress, though, which is what the original point was before or was derailed into a false dichotomy of having any safe harbor vs not. Either the DMCA is defective in that regard, or it's a deliberate feature. Either way, it's open for abuse.
Considering the open internet existed before DMCA did, I suspect “essential” is an exaggeration.
Internet wasn't that fast, consumers weren't informed, legislators weren't informed.
The criteria was existence. It existed.
Could the internet exist in a way that makes the RIAA/MPAA/etc happy without DMCA? Maybe not. But there’s no reason to assume their happiness is a requirement, or even desirable.
Could the internet exist in a way that makes the RIAA/MPAA/etc happy without DMCA? Maybe not. But there’s no reason to assume their happiness is a requirement, or even desirable.
The internet was more than fast enough for copyright infringement. Copywritten books, images, and even music were commonly shared online before the DMCA was passed.
> Lets remember that the DMCA is what allows providers like youtube to host content without being liable to the copyright infringement of its users.
It arguably doesn’t actually allow sites very specifically like Youtube to do that, which is why YouTube has a separate and more draconian arrangement with major rights holders, created in response to previous litigation and litigation threats, and is also currently being sued by a variety of rights holders in a suit which hasn’t been easily been barred by the DMCA safe harbor.
It arguably doesn’t actually allow sites very specifically like Youtube to do that, which is why YouTube has a separate and more draconian arrangement with major rights holders, created in response to previous litigation and litigation threats, and is also currently being sued by a variety of rights holders in a suit which hasn’t been easily been barred by the DMCA safe harbor.
I thought the reason was section 230 not dmca.
Section 230 doesn't apply to copyright infringement claims (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...). Immunity from copyright infringement claims relies on the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.
false dilemmas are seen to intentionally omit the possibility of additional options and approaches
If this attorney is filing BS DMCA claims, hopefully they'll give a gentle heads-up to his local bar association
Institutional remedies which require years of process for abuses that can be carried out in seconds or minutes are fundamentally inadequate.
A bar association can remediate pretty quickly if it chooses to.
Youtube takedowns aren't DMCA requests. There is no legal penalty for perjury. It's just a good old fashioned mob shakedown. In this case neither party is even subject to US law so even more irrelevant.
FTA:
> Matters have now escalated to the point where the game itself has been taken off Steam due to a DMCA request, and the player is “now claiming that they own the rights to the [realistic] game mode”
> Matters have now escalated to the point where the game itself has been taken off Steam due to a DMCA request, and the player is “now claiming that they own the rights to the [realistic] game mode”
YouTube has an internal system for handing requests apart of DMCA but videos may also be taken down from YouTube via a DMCA request per law. “Takedown” is a word often used interchangeably for a video taken down via either method.
What about Steam takedowns?
Steam responds to DMCA, as far as I'm aware, and doesn't have a separate process.
I hope instead of accepting a settlement when lawyer boy starts to cry uncle they take it all the way to the end and bankrupt and disbar him.
[deleted]
It sounds the fan has no basis for their claim, but due to their background they are able to craft professional claims. I guess the lesson is always expect someone try to screw you via legal pathway (if you read about history of any field this seems to be a quite recurring pattern - if you have a business, you better lawyer up sooner than later).
It baffles me that there are no legal repercussions for abuse of DMCA / IP / copyright instruments.
People who do this without grounds should be punished/fines for abusing the system proportionate to what they claim.
People who do this without grounds should be punished/fines for abusing the system proportionate to what they claim.
There are but it requires the victim to have the time, energy, and of course, money to pursue it. It also needs to not be some "DMCA Lite" contractual mechanism like Youtube's shitty ContentID system. Only real bad faith DMCA requests need apply.
Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
17 U.S.C.A. § 512Yep! It isn't very hard to get someone punished for abusing the system if you have the resources.
YouTube did it a few years ago [1] to a popular creator in the Minecraft community who was threatening creator's with Community Guideline Strikes in order to extort them for money.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/man-agrees-to-pa...
YouTube did it a few years ago [1] to a popular creator in the Minecraft community who was threatening creator's with Community Guideline Strikes in order to extort them for money.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/man-agrees-to-pa...
The more I hear about 'popular creators' or 'influencers' the more it seems like a popular career for people with character flaws that can't be easily hidden in face-to-face business environments.
I checked about half a dozen articles about this incident and none of them say the extortionist (Christopher Brady) was any sort of 'creator' or influencer. I can't find any reference to his name anywhere that describes him as any sort of content creator. I believe that claim is mistaken.
Sorry should have added some context! He was a content creator!
Here are some links that reference his YouTube channel name (cbrady350) which match to his real name Chris Brady.
[1] https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/cbrady350-pvp [2] http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqnk16 [3] https://twitter.com/sk1er_/status/1163536914386960384
Here are some links that reference his YouTube channel name (cbrady350) which match to his real name Chris Brady.
[1] https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/cbrady350-pvp [2] http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqnk16 [3] https://twitter.com/sk1er_/status/1163536914386960384
[deleted]
> It also needs to not be some "DMCA Lite" contractual mechanism like Youtube's shitty ContentID system.
Why not? By my reading of the section you quoted, it stands independently from its parent sections; anyone who makes a legal claim of copyright infringement, or pursues action under the principle that such a claim exists, would seemingly be liable for damages if they're "knowingly materially misrepresenting" the facts of that infringement, whether or not in the context of a DMCA takedown claim.
Which, I mean, obviously; that's already the law, without the DMCA having to say anything additionally about it. If someone threatens legal action against you unless you do X, and you do X, and it costs you money, and then you find out it was a lie and they had no basis for their legal action — then you can totally sue them for damages, and you'll probably win. The DMCA just provides a very explicit basis for evaluating that particular situation without referring to any other bodies of potentially-conflicting case-law, so as to turn that "probably" into a "definitely."
Why not? By my reading of the section you quoted, it stands independently from its parent sections; anyone who makes a legal claim of copyright infringement, or pursues action under the principle that such a claim exists, would seemingly be liable for damages if they're "knowingly materially misrepresenting" the facts of that infringement, whether or not in the context of a DMCA takedown claim.
Which, I mean, obviously; that's already the law, without the DMCA having to say anything additionally about it. If someone threatens legal action against you unless you do X, and you do X, and it costs you money, and then you find out it was a lie and they had no basis for their legal action — then you can totally sue them for damages, and you'll probably win. The DMCA just provides a very explicit basis for evaluating that particular situation without referring to any other bodies of potentially-conflicting case-law, so as to turn that "probably" into a "definitely."
> you can totally sue them for damages, and you'll probably win
Yeah, you can totally sue Disney or Warner Bros if they file a false infringement claim against you. You'll definitely not win unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to go up against their phalanxes of corporate lawyers.
The DMCA doesn't take into account unequal parties.
Yeah, you can totally sue Disney or Warner Bros if they file a false infringement claim against you. You'll definitely not win unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to go up against their phalanxes of corporate lawyers.
The DMCA doesn't take into account unequal parties.
In theory that is a problem; in practice, the companies making knowingly false ContentID claims are 99% of the time small actors. Just like patent trolls are 99% of the time small actors.
Mind you, I say knowingly false. Big companies unknowingly make false claims all the time, because they don't know what-all they actually own — but you can't sue them for that anyway, since there's no mens rea there.
Mind you, I say knowingly false. Big companies unknowingly make false claims all the time, because they don't know what-all they actually own — but you can't sue them for that anyway, since there's no mens rea there.
> but you can't sue them for that anyway, since there's no mens rea there.
"I don't know whether or not I own this intellectual property but I'm going to sic the DMCA on you anyway" is blatant negligence, at best. That our legal system doesn't consider that to be mens rea is one of a 3.7-mile-high stack of indictments against said legal system.
"I don't know whether or not I own this intellectual property but I'm going to sic the DMCA on you anyway" is blatant negligence, at best. That our legal system doesn't consider that to be mens rea is one of a 3.7-mile-high stack of indictments against said legal system.
> anyone who makes a legal claim of copyright infringement
The answer is right there, my emphasis added. YouTube’s internal mechanisms, a la ContentID, are not processes which are a part of the legal system. They’re corporate policies.
It is worth noting that this distinction is irrelevant to this article, however. As this article says this was a DMCA claim. So any potential false claims in this case do carry this potential penalty.
The answer is right there, my emphasis added. YouTube’s internal mechanisms, a la ContentID, are not processes which are a part of the legal system. They’re corporate policies.
It is worth noting that this distinction is irrelevant to this article, however. As this article says this was a DMCA claim. So any potential false claims in this case do carry this potential penalty.
> The answer is right there, my emphasis added. YouTube’s internal mechanisms, a la ContentID, are not processes which are a part of the legal system. They’re corporate policies.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant, "any claim that can be interpreted in a court of law as being equivalent to saying you intend to sue for copyright infringement and have a legal basis to do so."
In the same sense that a handshake contract is still a binding contract, a regular letter telling someone that you're aware they're violating your copyright — and which doesn't explicitly disclaim any interest in pursuing legal action — can still be interpreted as a threat of legal action; and therefore, if proven to be based on knowingly false claims, as injurious perjury.
To be clear, it's not YouTube making this claim; it's the IP owner making the claim, when they register the IP in the ContentID system. Such a registration is equivalent in the spirit of the law to notoriously claiming 1. you are the IP's true owner, and 2. that you do not license use of your IP for use by others without your prior consent; and that therefore 3. you have an interest in pursuing action against all future unlicensed use of your IP, whether that action is using the DMCA, within the framework of the legal system outside of the DMCA specifically, or through extralegal means.
By analogy, consider what sort of verbal claim of intent to commit a crime (e.g. selling illegal drugs) is necessary in a police sting to trigger an arrest. You don't need to actually have committed the crime (i.e. hand the undercover officer any drugs, or even prove you have any drugs); you merely need to make it clear that you are actively working to set up the conditions necessary to carry out the crime (i.e. to agree/negotiate a price for the drugs you may have.)
In this case, a judge would basically be looking for the point of "stated intent to commit perjury." Which happens as soon as the ContentID for the video is registered!
No, that's not what I meant. I meant, "any claim that can be interpreted in a court of law as being equivalent to saying you intend to sue for copyright infringement and have a legal basis to do so."
In the same sense that a handshake contract is still a binding contract, a regular letter telling someone that you're aware they're violating your copyright — and which doesn't explicitly disclaim any interest in pursuing legal action — can still be interpreted as a threat of legal action; and therefore, if proven to be based on knowingly false claims, as injurious perjury.
To be clear, it's not YouTube making this claim; it's the IP owner making the claim, when they register the IP in the ContentID system. Such a registration is equivalent in the spirit of the law to notoriously claiming 1. you are the IP's true owner, and 2. that you do not license use of your IP for use by others without your prior consent; and that therefore 3. you have an interest in pursuing action against all future unlicensed use of your IP, whether that action is using the DMCA, within the framework of the legal system outside of the DMCA specifically, or through extralegal means.
By analogy, consider what sort of verbal claim of intent to commit a crime (e.g. selling illegal drugs) is necessary in a police sting to trigger an arrest. You don't need to actually have committed the crime (i.e. hand the undercover officer any drugs, or even prove you have any drugs); you merely need to make it clear that you are actively working to set up the conditions necessary to carry out the crime (i.e. to agree/negotiate a price for the drugs you may have.)
In this case, a judge would basically be looking for the point of "stated intent to commit perjury." Which happens as soon as the ContentID for the video is registered!
Yes, generally speaking legal threats which are not made in good faith can cross the line into being illegal, e.g. extortion. But that isn’t because they violate DMCA 512(f). And I think it a a bit of a stretch to say that abusing ContentID is a legal threat. The number of ContentID claims that result in legal action rounds to zero.
Had anyone ever successfully sued in response to a false non-DMCA copyright claim?
Had anyone ever successfully sued in response to a false non-DMCA copyright claim?
[deleted]
You can file for a declaratory judgment and ask for attorney's fees under the fee-shifting provision of the copyright act. Generally, most of the quasi-DMCA programs also observe the counter-notice process, which gives the plaintiff ten business days to file a lawsuit, but then cancels the informal copyright complaint if the time period ends without that lawsuit being filed.
In this case, sending a counter-notice (free), filing for a declaratory judgment and asking for an injunction to prevent additional malicious filings would probably be the most direct pathway to relief.
Filing bar complaints isn't likely to work all that well, because it doesn't really map to the typical things that state bar associations really look to pursue. The vast majority of bar complaints result in nothing, and most of the ones that are deemed valid result in mandatory CLE rather than more substantive penalties.
In this case, sending a counter-notice (free), filing for a declaratory judgment and asking for an injunction to prevent additional malicious filings would probably be the most direct pathway to relief.
Filing bar complaints isn't likely to work all that well, because it doesn't really map to the typical things that state bar associations really look to pursue. The vast majority of bar complaints result in nothing, and most of the ones that are deemed valid result in mandatory CLE rather than more substantive penalties.
I mean, there is. It's perjury.
And the target of a false claim can sue the party who made the claim for damages and attorney's fees.
And the target of a false claim can sue the party who made the claim for damages and attorney's fees.
So if you're rich and have the time there may be consequences, but ultimately since anyone can file a false DMCA notice, there's really no assurance that you will ever get your own lawyer's fees back let alone damages (even if they were awarded).
Perjury is a pretty terrible mechanism, frankly. The whole law was and is poorly conceived.
Perjury is a pretty terrible mechanism, frankly. The whole law was and is poorly conceived.
Strictly speaking, I think the only bit that's perjury would be falsely claiming to be the copyright holder (which probably applies in this case, though I suppose the argument could be made that they were just wrong, not lying), which still leaves plenty of room for falsely claiming that something infringes a copyright.
To file a DMCA complaint you must be the copyright holder, or authorized to act on their behalf.
Yes, and it's only that assertion that is made under penalty of perjury, not the assertion that the targeted work actually infringes on that copyright.
So, if they aren't the copyright holder (as in this case) they have committed perjury by asserting they are.
Possibly not if they thought they had a valid claim, but I really don't know how that would work out in practice.
I'm not so sure. It's a fact that he was involved in the development of this new feature, and it's his opinion that he originated the idea. Whether he did or not is for a court to decide, but he's not committing perjury by believing this.
Now if he knows he didn't originate the idea and has brought vexatious proceedings, then sure, this may be perjury, but we are some way off knowing this, and i don't think we'll be in a position to determine this either way.
Now if he knows he didn't originate the idea and has brought vexatious proceedings, then sure, this may be perjury, but we are some way off knowing this, and i don't think we'll be in a position to determine this either way.
Ideas aren't copyrightable. If they're not using his code or art or actual copyrightable materials, then there is no copyright infringement.
He wasn't involved, from all accounts.
[deleted]
I don't think these developers have much of a grip on reality. They stated that Valve could suffer financial harm if the game stays off Steam. I don't think they realize how much money Valve makes.
What does the total income of valve have to do with it. Lost profit is still harm.
I think they're talking about the bad precident it sets.
Of course they have to say things like that to attract attention to their cause. I doubt they're that naive.
Valve could, hypothetically, be the target of a suit for damages if they do not comply with the DMCA counter claim. Odds are good that valve will just do everything it can to be by the book and get out of the way.
I don’t think they’re trying to say that he’s bankrupting Valve, but that he will be bankrupted by the damages he will have to pay..
Ironically, it seems that fan would fit perfectly as a bureaucrat in a Soviet Republic.
This is like a reboot of "Mazes and Monsters" [0] forty years later.
0. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/
1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/mediaviewer/rm188310835...
0. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/
1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/mediaviewer/rm188310835...
If his realistic game mode is as good as his real world game mode they should hire him.
Maybe he'll be defenestrated instead of disbarred.
The fan is a lawyer too. What a nightmare.
I'm curious what the legal precedent on this. If intellectual property, concepts, lore, can be protected, does this person have a claim here even though they didn't write the code? Is there a statutory norm for percentages in cases like these?
This has to be terrible for small dev shops to face, I'd imagine enough litigating and good projects just fold up shop unable to afford their own defense cost.
This has to be terrible for small dev shops to face, I'd imagine enough litigating and good projects just fold up shop unable to afford their own defense cost.
In general ideas are not copyrightable. Expression of ideas are copyrightable.
Anyone can sue you for whatever reason. The court can throw the case out but it’s a nuisance to you.
Anyone can sue you for whatever reason. The court can throw the case out but it’s a nuisance to you.
Maybe a case for EFF?
Bit like a patent troll except unstable jumped up lawyer fan edition...
"DMCA mechanics just not works"
But it’s also why many “old media” producers and companies in the entertainment and music industry have careful policies around refusing to receive or acknowledge ideas and content from outside the organization.
It’s much harder for some fan-writer to pursue spurious legal credit for some plot idea or script content when you maintain an official policy to bin unsolicited submissions and to never acknowledge work shared in public.
That’s tricky for “new media” companies since consumers now expect direct engagement with publishers, especially for “indie” artists, but the old system was designed to guard against stuff like this.