Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

blog.luanti.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#111

Post by vorpalhex »

tough wrote: post #108
vorpalhex wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the issues is that these aren't proper DMCA claims, instead Google/Youtube do a weird pseudo-DMCA thing where they just agree to take down your content and make you argue about it. But the DMCA allows immediate countersuit for false notice with damages. If Google/Youtube actually just forwarded strict DMCA notices and no longer did takedowns once you counter-claimed, you could sue the trolls and collect damage…

One of the loopholes of the counter-claim, is that you accept whatever random jurisdiction of the original claimer as your jurisdiction, pulling you usually into US Sphere. It's a rigged game, its better not to engage with. the specific laws and consequences from ai: > Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), for a DMCA counter-notice to be legally valid, the person filing it must explicitly state in writing that they consent…

It isn't necessary that everyone play the game, it only takes one attorney group to create a sufficient hazard to these troll firms.

Yes it is absolutely a dumb game and an unfair process, but playing dumb games and using unfair tactics to inflict pain go both ways.

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#112

Post by luckylion »

hexator wrote: post #61

There needs to be some sort of penalty for filing frivolous DMCA notices.

In this case, you know who claimed it. In most cases, you don't, because Google does not verify identity.

It's currently the rage in blackhat SEO: just say you're John Doe from Doeville and competitorsite.com is infringing on your copyright. Google will remove that specific URL from the SERPs and there's a 50/50 chance whether the target gets a notification from google or not.

If they do, they can counter claim directly and it takes 12-48 hours to be reinstated.

If they don't, they have to figure out what's going on by using the Lumen Database (the only way to receive that information because Google is horribly bad at basic legal matters) and finding the notice, which will contain the exact URL (because fun fact: the claim and counter-claim are case-sensitive, the removal-from-serp is case-insensitive), and then do manual counter-claim, and it takes anywhere from 3 to 30 days.

During that time, your competitor will just be gone from the SERPs.

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#113

Post by WarmWash »

Ukv wrote: post #89
WarmWash wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A clone isn't the benchmark for breaking the law though, substantial similarity is. There are a gazillion cases that establish this, and the reason why you can't just paint spiderman green and start selling t-shirts with "spyderman" on them.

Green Spiderman would be copying of protected elements - like Spiderman's outline. Style and general ideas are not protected by copyright. Substantial similarity comes in as a test for whether copying of those protected elements occurred, to avoid an otherwise disprovable "I didn't copy, I just drew Spiderman's exact outline by complete coincidence" defense, but is irrelevant if the what's supposedly been copied isn'…

Usually the benchmark is "would a person reasonably confuse this for being the IP of another company"

https://www.luanti.org/media/gallery/5.jpg

C'mon...

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#114

Post by rpdillon »

WarmWash wrote: post #81
nvme0n1p1 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, why? Because they both have blocks? Is Microsoft the only company allowed to use cubes now? Even if they were similar, artistic style is not protected under copyright.

But the IP is, and it's jury that would likely decide. So with a straight face, you think a jury wouldn't call this Minecraft? https://www.luanti.org/media/gallery/5.jpg Also Luanti probably could doge all this if they just ditched all the blatant minecraft clone mods. A mining game with blocks is totally fine. If you look back at infiniminer, it's clearly a different vibe of the same concept.

You're confusing copyright with patents, and you cannot patent a game design. Well, you couldn't. I'm not sure about these days. In any case, this isn't a patent claim. It's a copyright claim, and copyright protects expression, not the idea.

That'll all become glaringly obvious when this is reinstated, because the copyright claim is bogus.

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#115

Post by xenadu02 »

jmward01 wrote: post #92

The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argument of 'people must review' is really just an argument of cost. The amount of content on the web makes it impractical to pay that upfront but a bond makes it manageable.

It is not a legal process. It is Google's process designed to minimize their involvement to the maximum degree possible.

When some random person copyright strikes your YT account you have no rights because it isn't based on the law. Its the equivalent of someone going to the manager of Starbucks and falsely saying you are harassing them, then the manager tells you to leave or they'll call the police. One private party told another private party you are a bad person and the private party in control punished you.

If memory serves the whole system came about way back because the big media companies and record companies got together to sue YT after google acquired them. So you might say the system was designed to let purported copyright holders act arbitrarily on purpose.

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#116

Post by kmeisthax »

vorpalhex wrote: post #111
tough wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the loopholes of the counter-claim, is that you accept whatever random jurisdiction of the original claimer as your jurisdiction, pulling you usually into US Sphere. It's a rigged game, its better not to engage with. the specific laws and consequences from ai: > Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), for a DMCA counter-notice to be legally valid, the person filing it must explicitly state in writing that they consent…

It isn't necessary that everyone play the game, it only takes one attorney group to create a sufficient hazard to these troll firms. Yes it is absolutely a dumb game and an unfair process, but playing dumb games and using unfair tactics to inflict pain go both ways.

Yes. However, there are a lot of attorneys who do not want to take on the risk of representing a small client[0] and advise them to just settle - that's why copyright trolling works.

In addition, some platforms have their own parallel dispute resolution processes that have to be navigated first before you can make a formal DMCA complaint or counter-complaint. The reason for this is because those platforms have a lot of user piracy, and having their own system to ID and takedown work their users are reuploading makes it easier for them to negotiate their own licenses to the work. These systems are unregulated and often biased in favor of the legacy media companies who are selling them these rights in ways the DMCA process isn't.

The average attorney is not an expert platform Kremlinologist, and law schools don't teach how to fight YouTube Content ID - mainly because the things that actually work against Content ID are things that would get you punished harder in a real court of law.

Finally, the actual case we're talking about - Luanti - is a lot more involved than typical piracy cases or DMCA abuse cases. They are, after all, trying to make a game engine for Minecraft-like voxel games, and the screenshots they're showing off of those games are not entirely dissimilar to Minecraft. This is not "Luanti is an infringing copy of Minecraft", but "There is enough similarity to survive a motion to dismiss and require an actual trial". At which point the actual cost to defend goes from 4-5 figures to 6-7.

[0] The massive payments attorneys get for representation are priced into the cost of education and testing required to become a licensed attorney. As a result, every minute you spend representing someone who can't afford you is time not being spent paying back student loans.

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#117

Post by joquarky »

asphodele wrote: post #107
andai wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny I've even seen landing pages / product launches that violate this. Trending on HN: Blog post: Sneed now helps with your blargs Then I go to their homepage and it's like https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/3219377-curtains-for-zoosha

At last! My blargs have been in disarray for ages.

It sounds like someone hasn't yet invested in a turbo encabulator.

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#118

Post by astrobe_ »

mortsnort wrote: post #83

The game's own website describes it as an "open source alternative to Minecraft". Frivolous or not, MS has financial incentive to try to keep this game offline. I think this is going as intended from MS's POV.

I think you are hallucinating that quote.

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#119

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

SwellJoe wrote: post #80

I know this isn't the point but this post is a master class in how to inform readers when you expect people from outside your community to read it. It explains what every element is, concisely but clearly. I now know exactly what Luanti is, who all the actors are in this conflict, and what the conflict is about. It clearly conveys the who, what, when, where and why of the situation. Also, DMCA is a damned mess, with…

This isn't DMCA. The DMCA process provides for immediate restoration of contested content upon issuance of a counter notice. At that point the internet service is absolved of any responsibility until a court orders the removal. Google has never implemented that process.

Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice

#120

Post by pdonis »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #94
jmward01 wrote: post #92

The answer here is simple: If you submit a content strike you must provide a bond. If the content strike is reversed the bond is used to pay damages. The argument of 'people must review' is really just an argument of cost. The amount of content on the web makes it impractical to pay that upfront but a bond makes it manageable.

The answer is not simple. Your solution means small creators are even more disfavored than they already are by trolls stealing their work; trolls are already heavily favoured because small creators must dox themselves to file a claim, and now you're adding in payment burdens too. Any amount large enough for a corporation to care about at all will be too large for an independent creator. Now not only trolls but corpor…

The GP is not saying the small entity pays the bond. The GP is saying the big entity that wants the content taken down (in this case Microsoft and TracerAI) pays the bond, and forfeits it if a counter notice is issued.
Post reply on HN