Live data from Hacker News

Garry's Mod faces deluge of Nintendo-related DMCA takedown notices

engadget.com

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Garry's Mod faces deluge of Nintendo-related DMCA takedown notices

#22
Apparently one individual was first to react and discuss these at length over twitter, and they convinced themselves that these takedown notices were not genuine:

>They previously argued that the takedown notices couldn't be from the Japanese gaming giant, because Nintendo add-ons have been around since 2005 and because the company would've contacted Valve, the publisher of Garry's Mod, itself.

The nonsensical logical leap of an internet detective. Instead of positive evidence, they make an inference from the absence of information, attaching great meaning to that inference. And then, with that rickety scaffolding, proceed to assert the claims were not legitimate.

There are probably innumerably many reasons, relating to idiosyncracies of where and how Nintendo allocates their resources, the discoverability and motivation to prioritize, that can account for timing.

I think if there's such a thing as Internet Detective Syndrome, it's core defining feature would be the inability to comprehend the extent to which facts are really just idiosyncratic nothingburgers, because reality itself really is that disorganized and without meaning sometimes. Sometimes the facts are just circumstantial, and not key clues that demand special explanation or attribution of special motivations.

Re: Garry's Mod faces deluge of Nintendo-related DMCA takedown notices

#23
post #3

Nintendo seems to go through these litigious cycles every once in a while. I wonder if this is them asserting their IP as part of a larger strategy to focus attention on an upcoming system launch?

They have only recently started allowing their IP to be used for non-game products, like the recent Mario movies. My guess is that they are being litigious again because they want to avoid any confusion between sponsored and non-sponsored products.

Only recently? They've had non-game products for decades. They had branded breakfast cereal back in the late '80s, the Mario, Zelda, and Captain N cartoons, the first Super Mario Bros. movie was released in 1993, etc.

Re: Garry's Mod faces deluge of Nintendo-related DMCA takedown notices

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have only recently started allowing their IP to be used for non-game products, like the recent Mario movies. My guess is that they are being litigious again because they want to avoid any confusion between sponsored and non-sponsored products.

Only recently? They've had non-game products for decades. They had branded breakfast cereal back in the late '80s, the Mario, Zelda, and Captain N cartoons, the first Super Mario Bros. movie was released in 1993, etc.

I should have said, "re-allowed." But yes, and after that first movie, Nintendo really didn't want to let anyone else near their IP for a long, long time.

The Acquired episodes on Nintendo are great btw, and cover this extensively:

https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo

https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/nintendo-the-console-wars

From Wikipedia:

Released on May 28, 1993, Super Mario Bros. was a critical and financial failure, grossing $38.9 million worldwide against a budget of $42–48 million. Though appearing on several lists of the worst films ever made, it has developed a following over the years,[9][10] and has been reappraised by some as a cult classic for being "so bad it's good".[11][12][13] In 2013, a webcomic sequel was produced in collaboration with Bennett. After Super Mario Bros., Nintendo would not license another film based on the Super Mario game series for 30 years, until an animated reboot titled The Super Mario Bros. Movie was released on April 5, 2023.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._(film)

Re: Garry's Mod faces deluge of Nintendo-related DMCA takedown notices

#25
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of IP has "a physics-based sandbox game" (quote Wikipedia) that warrants DCMA notices? I mean to send out their own DCMA notices. Not receiving them.

One that has an internal system for uploading and downloading models and assets owned by other companies

I mean to send out their own DCMA notices. Not receiving them.

At least that's how I understood OP.

Re: Garry's Mod faces deluge of Nintendo-related DMCA takedown notices

#26

Serious question: why aren't false DMCA claims prosecutable as fraud? The elements are there - a knowingly false representation, detrimental reliance, and materiality.

The barrier of proof for a bogus DMCA is incredibly high. Even something like "our system sends out 100k takedowns a day, so it had to be automaded and sometimes we face false positives" is enough to shut down a case.

DMCA has many problems and needs to be updated for 20 years now. Remember the DECSS issues faced?

Re: Garry's Mod faces deluge of Nintendo-related DMCA takedown notices

#28

Serious question: why aren't false DMCA claims prosecutable as fraud? The elements are there - a knowingly false representation, detrimental reliance, and materiality.

Because copyright monopolists have trillions of dollars which they use to pay lobbyists and essentially buy laws such as the DMCA which says that you can issue a take down and it's up to poor sap on the receiving end to either submit or fight a costly legal battle to prove not just their innocence but their bad faith.

Re: Garry's Mod faces deluge of Nintendo-related DMCA takedown notices

#29

Serious question: why aren't false DMCA claims prosecutable as fraud? The elements are there - a knowingly false representation, detrimental reliance, and materiality.

The barrier of proof for a bogus DMCA is incredibly high. Even something like "our system sends out 100k takedowns a day, so it had to be automaded and sometimes we face false positives" is enough to shut down a case. DMCA has many problems and needs to be updated for 20 years now. Remember the DECSS issues faced?

> we face false positives

> enough to shut down a case

... It boggles my mind that this could ever be considered an acceptable defense in any court.

Post reply on HN