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

City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

kotaku.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#91

Post by SideQuark »

catiopatio wrote: post #55
SideQuark wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protectio…

The DMCA was passed in 1998. You do realize we had a fully functioning internet filled with user-generated content before 1998, right?

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......

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#92

Post by lazyasciiart »

stonogo wrote: post #84
lazyasciiart wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What evidence do you have that the claim is false?

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.

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#93

Post by Oxidation »

SideQuark wrote: post #91
catiopatio wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA was passed in 1998. You do realize we had a fully functioning internet filled with user-generated content before 1998, right?

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......

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.

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#94

Post by jeff_tyrrill »

dragonwriter wrote: post #88
noxvilleza wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

> 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?

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.

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#95

Post by dragonwriter »

jeff_tyrrill wrote: post #94
dragonwriter wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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.

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#96

Post by jeff_tyrrill »

dragonwriter wrote: post #95
jeff_tyrrill wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#97

Post by joshka »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #82
thomastjeffery wrote: post #74

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 ga…

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.

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.

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#98

Post by dangrossman »

catiopatio wrote: post #55
SideQuark wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 protectio…

The DMCA was passed in 1998. 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.

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#99

Post by anigbrowl »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #79
anigbrowl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 sti…

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.

Re: City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue

#100

Post by anigbrowl »

foverzar wrote: post #71
anigbrowl wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Why shouldn't I hate the players? That's just some BS used to shrug off accountability.
Post reply on HN