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]
City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
31–40 of 132 posts
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#32Ironically, it seems that fan would fit perfectly as a bureaucrat in a Soviet Republic.
If his realistic game mode is as good as his real world game mode they should hire him.
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#33This is awful. 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 acknow…
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.
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#34If this attorney is filing BS DMCA claims, hopefully they'll give a gentle heads-up to his local bar association
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.
What about Steam takedowns?
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#35It 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.
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.
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.
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#36DMCA is such an epically shitty law. Only worse is that other countries are happily copying the law too.
> 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).
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#37It 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.
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.
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.
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#38DMCA is such an epically shitty law. Only worse is that other countries are happily copying the law too.
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.
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 b…
Yep! 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...
[deleted]
Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.