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

We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

gamehistory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#11

Post by oliwarner »

vessenes wrote: post #3

Detailed story, very helpful. You nerd baited me, so I went ahead and read 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). (f) Misrepresentations.—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 in…

The word "knowingly" makes getting even with takedown trolls almost impossible because you have to prove their intent.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#12

Post by qingcharles »

bsder wrote: post #7
thaumasiotes wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that can't be their motivation, because the museum was only targeted by coincidence. Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.

> Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking. 1) You vastly underestimate the persistence of Internet trolls with too much time and money. It doesn't take many; it only takes one . 2) This could be someone testing the seams so that they can sell their services on more…

They could also be mentally unwell. I've known people like this who the Internet massively empowers with its asymmetric abilities and its anonymity. This person might have unlimited free time to conduct their campaigns.

Ask any court clerk about the unending filings they get from disturbed individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Lee_Riches#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#13

Post by chrismorgan »

> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive.

It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you have the resources, use them! This is a cost of getting big. You have economies of scale in other areas, don’t try to evade responsibility here.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#15

Post by TurdF3rguson »

qingcharles wrote: post #12
bsder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking. 1) You vastly underestimate the persistence of Internet trolls with too much time and money. It doesn't take many; it only takes one . 2) This could be someone testing the seams so that they can sell their services on more…

They could also be mentally unwell. I've known people like this who the Internet massively empowers with its asymmetric abilities and its anonymity. This person might have unlimited free time to conduct their campaigns. Ask any court clerk about the unending filings they get from disturbed individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Lee_Riches#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin

Not to mention you know who (rhymes with bloatus)

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#16

Post by ndiddy »

protocolture wrote: post #10
ndiddy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to…

>Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior t…

It's definitely all circumstantial evidence, but from all the recent stuff about Cookie's Bustle we know that whoever it is:

a) Is willing to at least tell the UK government that he's Keisuke Harigai (see this UK trademark registration: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00... )

b) Is comfortable with registering companies in shady tax havens and knows his way around international IP registration/enforcement

c) Has a bunch of private data related to Cookie's Bustle's development

d) Is unwilling to make any sort of public statement beyond sending takedown notices

Meanwhile, Keisuke Harigai:

a) Is Keisuke Harigai

b) Runs a company out of the Cayman Islands

c) Would have access to all data related to Cookie's Bustle's development because he ran Rodik

d) Has not made any sort of statement related to Cookie's Bustle since 2001 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20010725131942/http://www.idevga... ) despite people attempting to contact him after the takedowns started

Obviously nothing concrete but I think he's the likeliest candidate.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#17

Post by protocolture »

ndiddy wrote: post #16
protocolture wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior t…

It's definitely all circumstantial evidence, but from all the recent stuff about Cookie's Bustle we know that whoever it is: a) Is willing to at least tell the UK government that he's Keisuke Harigai (see this UK trademark registration: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00... ) b) Is comfortable with registering companies in shady tax havens and knows his way around international IP registrati…

The UK Filing is probably the most interesting. However, its hard to unravel the mail forwarder. If a mail forwarder let you establish a forward in someone elses name it might be an easy way to pretend to be someone else for the purposes of UK Trademarks.

That said, could also just be convenient for filing outside of japan, japanese street addresses are notorious.

The most convincing argument in favor of Harigai is why would anyone believe there is money to be made there. Its not like sending takedown notices is a renewable source of income.

Even if someone was making a movie about it, the secrecy doesnt make a lot of sense. The guy could clear so much up with just an email.

>Would have access to all data related to Cookie's Bustle's development because he ran Rodik

Just a few years ago, the son of one of the original Metal Fatigue developers found old nightly backups and handed them over to Nightdive. I just find this to be a pretty weak element of the argument. The person with the strongest claim, using the weakest methods to establish that claim doesnt make sense to me.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#18

Post by scosman »

Missing detail about DMCA here is that you can file a counter-notice. You can reply and say "this is fair use" or "I own this", and the service provider will 1) forward the notice, 2) restore the content unless the claimed copyright owner sues.

It's not perfect, and the system can still be abused. But a DMCA takedown isn't necessarily an impossible burden that requires the recipient to do sleuthing to determine the real copyright owner. If they own it, they are good. If it's reasonably fair use, say so. Sending a DMCA takedown is easy, but you can flip it back just as easily. The hard/expensive part is filing/defending a lawsuit, which the complainant must initiate, which then reveals their identity, establishes liability for false claims, and carries a burden of proof.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#19

Post by extraduder_ire »

scosman wrote: post #18

Missing detail about DMCA here is that you can file a counter-notice. You can reply and say "this is fair use" or "I own this", and the service provider will 1) forward the notice, 2) restore the content unless the claimed copyright owner sues. It's not perfect, and the system can still be abused. But a DMCA takedown isn't necessarily an impossible burden that requires the recipient to do sleuthing to determine the r…

The counter-notice requires you to provide your details to the filer.

The process is often abused just to gain this information, with the complainant dropping the whole thing after receiving these details.

Re: We've freed Cookie's Bustle from copyright hell

#20

Post by duskwuff »

vadansky wrote: post #8
thaumasiotes wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that can't be their motivation, because the museum was only targeted by coincidence. Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.

I think the theory was he had a rare copy and wanted to drive the price of it up.

That's hard to reconcile with actions like issuing DMCA takedowns on videos of the game (or even Discord messages which mention it). If fewer people know a game exists, there's less of a market for copies of it.
Post reply on HN