[HN Gopher] City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
___________________________________________________________________
City-Builder Taken Off Steam After Fan Goes Rogue
Author : genedan
Score : 128 points
Date : 2023-02-19 15:20 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (kotaku.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (kotaku.com)
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| If this attorney is filing BS DMCA claims, hopefully they'll give
| a gentle heads-up to his local bar association
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Institutional remedies which require years of process for
| abuses that can be carried out in seconds or minutes are
| fundamentally inadequate.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| A bar association can remediate pretty quickly if it chooses
| to.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| 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.
| roughly wrote:
| FTA:
|
| > Matters have now escalated to the point where the game
| itself has been taken off Steam due to a DMCA request, and
| the player is "now claiming that they own the rights to the
| [realistic] game mode"
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| What about Steam takedowns?
| yeahbutiguess wrote:
| Steam responds to DMCA, as far as I'm aware, and doesn't
| have a separate process.
| kube-system wrote:
| YouTube has an internal system for handing requests apart of
| DMCA but videos may also be taken down from YouTube via a
| DMCA request per law. "Takedown" is a word often used
| interchangeably for a video taken down via either method.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Maybe a case for EFF?
| swatcoder wrote:
| This 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
| acknowledge work shared in public.
|
| That's tricky for "new media" companies since consumers now
| expect direct engagement with publishers, especially for "indie"
| artists, but the old system was designed to guard against stuff
| like this.
| tumult wrote:
| 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.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| The person is claiming rights to a version of the game not
| yet released because they wrote a game guide about how to do
| it and the game creators agreed to credit him in the new IP.
| This has led to him filing the DMCA requests and initiating a
| claim against the new product. The DMCA requests appear to be
| retaliatory. That's my understanding from the minimal
| information provided in the article.
|
| Note however we are getting _one side_ of this story -- the
| developers. I have no idea what is going on and it is
| surprising how many times things swing around when both
| parties are heard (the Doom Eternal soundtrack issues come to
| mind)[0].
|
| [0] https://medium.com/@mickgordon/my-full-statement-
| regarding-d...
| alexander-wilms wrote:
| [flagged]
| kyleyeats wrote:
| The fan is a lawyer too. What a nightmare.
| speeder wrote:
| DMCA is such an epically shitty law. Only worse is that other
| countries are happily copying the law too.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 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 that this is necessary because transparency
| will allow bad actors to game the system, but their solution to
| this to make society into an oppressive panopticon; the cure is
| worse than the disease. Further, the ignore the degree to which
| the lack of transparency is already weaponized by bad faith
| actors.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| It's a crappy law. It was bought and paid for by the
| recording industry, which should tell you something.
| cld8483 wrote:
| [dead]
| Zak wrote:
| The broken part of the notice/takedown/counter-notice process
| is that a takedown requires prompt action, but a counter-
| notice requires a waiting period. Removing the waiting period
| and relying on damages to make the copyright holder whole
| seems like a more fair process.
|
| I think the anticircumvention part of the DMCA is what's
| really shitty, but that's a tangent.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| 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 still needs to define a reasonable
| _application_ of that mapping.
|
| If, in practice, we see a law being abused, then the solution
| must be to change that law such that it isn't abusable
| anymore.
|
| DMCA is an extreme failure, not in defining expected behavior
| _per se_ , but in defining the domain for implementing
| behavior. The way DMCA is put into practice circumvents the
| very ideological behaviors it defined as its expectations, in
| nearly every case it is applied to.
|
| A version of DMCA that "isn't shitty" would be incapable of
| such overt and widespread abuse. Clearly the version we have
| does not meet that criteria.
| fivre wrote:
| Yes. In general, DMCA was written by rightsholder lawyers
| early in the internet's lifetime to maximize their power and
| minimize their responsibilities or damages if they abuse it.
| The prevalence of systems like Youtube's contentID allowing
| (often real, but also often flimsily alleged) rightsholders
| to nigh-unilaterally capture all value on the barest
| suggestion of unlicensed use is abysmal and calls for a
| compulsory license system more akin to radio, but
| rightsholders don't want that because compulsory licenses
| don't let them negotiate megaprofit deals on their own terms.
|
| The anti-circumvention provsions are also a trash fire. DRM
| regimes are some hot consumer-hostile bullshit that have no
| (legal) alternative because the law is behind them and
| heavily weighted towards the needs and wants of major IP
| holders. Modern US copyright law is designed primarily to
| maximize profits and enforcement mechanisms for entrenched
| interests with little regard for anything that isn't, idk,
| Beyonce tier of actually needing that much licensing cruft.
|
| There's some joke somewhere about ours being the first few
| generations to systematically deny ourselves access to our
| own culture because biglaw is more than happy to cut off its
| cultural nose to spite its face so long as the money train
| keeps flowing for the few elites that really benefit from the
| current system. We have a walled garden that will likely
| never fall because life is peachy if you're inside the garden
| already, and anyone outside can't compete with the financial
| and lobbying muscle of those inside it without operating in
| legal gray areas at best.
| flangola7 wrote:
| One single change could have made the DMCA better: Only
| allow copy "rights" to be assigned to real persons, and
| grant the original artist a permanent ownership (if I take
| a photograph I can sell or give you a license to use it,
| but not in a way that prevents me from continuing to use
| it). This prevents wealthy classes from financially bulling
| regular artists out of their own works.
|
| For a large production like a film, that may mean splitting
| the rights up fractionally to thousands of different
| people. This would prevent the kind of unilateral rent
| seeking that squashes artistic creativity - getting a
| thousand regular actual artists and normal people to agree
| to sue a harmless fan project is much less likely than an
| executive suite.
| foverzar wrote:
| 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.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| In this case, "The players" have a direct influence on what
| becomes a part of the game, through lobbying, campaign
| finances and whatever other more shady shit corporations
| get up to in order to stack the deck in their favor.
|
| At some point you have to realize the players are dictating
| the game, and then yeah, hate them.
| Ekaros wrote:
| To me it isn't that horrible process.
|
| You are own a small forum or site. You get DMCA takedown, you
| take content down and are safe. Send notification to uploader.
| They disagree. You can put stuff back up. You are not liable
| for damages after this. And really shouldn't be expected to
| fight.
|
| Now it is up to the two other parties to fight it out. This is
| where the system fails, because whole process is long and
| expensive. But so is any other legal action. Maybe consider
| fixing that reality first.
| noxvilleza wrote:
| The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people can
| file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero
| repercussions.
|
| Companies that host content do basically nothing to actually
| verify that the takedown request is even from a real person
| (nevermind the original copyright holder).
|
| A better system would be one that allows the uploader to take
| the takedown issuer to court, and if the takedown request was
| clearly malicious and bogus then the takedown issuer would
| get a penalty. This approach would still allow a legitimate
| takedown request, but not be forced the issuer into taking a
| contested case to court.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The safe-harbor part isn't bad. What's bad is that people
| can file an obviously bogus DMCA takedown request with zero
| repercussions.
|
| The takedown process is part of, and only relevant to, the
| safe-harbor provision.
|
| > Companies that host content do basically nothing to
| actually verify that the takedown request is even from a
| real person (nevermind the original copyright holder).
|
| Because not complying with a correct-in-form takedown puts
| them outside of the dafe harbor. The uploader can, of
| course, challenge the false takedown (and the host can
| decide they don't care about safe harbor, but they won't in
| practice, nor will they normally care as much about safe
| harbor against claims by the uploader, so _counternotice_
| compliance may be less enthusiastic than takedown
| compliance.)
|
| > A better system would be one that allows the uploader to
| take the takedown issuer to court
|
| You can do this. A false takedown is false, damaging
| statement of fact and actionable as such, it may also be
| actionable as tortious interference, and a number of other
| things.
| noxvilleza wrote:
| > 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).
| devmor wrote:
| 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.
| Adraghast wrote:
| Considering the open internet existed before DMCA did, I
| suspect "essential" is an exaggeration.
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| Internet wasn't that fast, consumers weren't informed,
| legislators weren't informed.
| cld8483 wrote:
| [dead]
| Oxidation wrote:
| 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.
| SideQuark wrote:
| 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.
| Oxidation wrote:
| It's not necessarily true that a system that requires a
| claimant to demonstrate ownership _also_ requires a user
| to pre-emptively prove it.
|
| You could have a law that provides a safe harbor
| provision but also requires claims to be honest and
| backed-up to "some" level of confidence.
|
| The law as it stands does appear to have the possibility
| of the penalty of perjury for intentional misuse, but,
| apparently, a comma means that apparently this is
| actually only applicable to a small part of the claim[1],
| and as far as I know has never done so. I do not know if
| this is because the law doesn't make definitions clear
| enough to demonstrate bad-faith in court (including that
| comma), or the legal system in general simply doesn't
| care to enforce the law.
|
| [1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-
| anyone-bee...
| catiopatio wrote:
| The DMCA was passed in 1998.
|
| You do realize we had a fully functioning internet filled
| with user-generated content before 1998, right?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| false dilemmas are seen to _intentionally_ omit the
| possibility of additional options and approaches
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| I thought the reason was section 230 not dmca.
| ameliaquining wrote:
| Section 230 doesn't apply to copyright infringement claims
| (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-
| prelim...). Immunity from copyright infringement claims
| relies on the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.
| Oxidation wrote:
| > 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).
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I don't think these developers have much of a grip on reality.
| They stated that Valve could suffer financial harm if the game
| stays off Steam. I don't think they realize how much money Valve
| makes.
| klondike_ wrote:
| I think they're talking about the bad precident it sets.
| yeahbutiguess wrote:
| Valve could, hypothetically, be the target of a suit for
| damages if they do not comply with the DMCA counter claim. Odds
| are good that valve will just do everything it can to be by the
| book and get out of the way.
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| Of course they have to say things like that to attract
| attention to their cause. I doubt they're that naive.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| What does the total income of valve have to do with it. Lost
| profit is still harm.
| eska wrote:
| I don't think they're trying to say that he's bankrupting
| Valve, but that he will be bankrupted by the damages he will
| have to pay..
| fsloth wrote:
| It sounds the fan has no basis for their claim, but due to their
| background they are able to craft professional claims. I guess
| the lesson is always expect someone try to screw you via legal
| pathway (if you read about history of any field this seems to be
| a quite recurring pattern - if you have a business, you better
| lawyer up sooner than later).
| lagniappe wrote:
| I'm curious what the legal precedent on this. If intellectual
| property, concepts, lore, can be protected, does this person have
| a claim here even though they didn't write the code? Is there a
| statutory norm for percentages in cases like these?
|
| This has to be terrible for small dev shops to face, I'd imagine
| enough litigating and good projects just fold up shop unable to
| afford their own defense cost.
| ww520 wrote:
| In general ideas are not copyrightable. Expression of ideas are
| copyrightable.
|
| Anyone can sue you for whatever reason. The court can throw the
| case out but it's a nuisance to you.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| 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 game
| company and its business presence.
|
| They feel they have the right to monopolize the product of their
| intellectual work, because copyright says so. They feel they can
| interrupt the sales of the game because copyright says so.
|
| And most important, they _feel_ that they _should_ do these
| things, because the very existence of copyright, and it 's
| foundational social purpose, tell them it's in their best
| interest, and their "best interest" is tantamount.
|
| This isn't just a story about copyright, it's copyright itself
| told as a story, just with real people as subjects.
|
| So let's stop pretending. This is ugly, frivolous, unhelpful, and
| damaging. _This_ is copyright law. This is an exposition of the
| social malware that copyright is, was, and ever will be.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| 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.
| stonogo wrote:
| What evidence do you have that the claim is false?
| fakedang wrote:
| Ironically, it seems that fan would fit perfectly as a bureaucrat
| in a Soviet Republic.
| itronitron wrote:
| This is like a reboot of "Mazes and Monsters" [0] forty years
| later.
|
| 0. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/
|
| 1.
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/mediaviewer/rm188310835...
| 6510 wrote:
| If his realistic game mode is as good as his real world game
| mode they should hire him.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Maybe he'll be defenestrated instead of disbarred.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| It 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.
| jackmott wrote:
| [dead]
| mountainb wrote:
| You can file for a declaratory judgment and ask for attorney's
| fees under the fee-shifting provision of the copyright act.
| Generally, most of the quasi-DMCA programs also observe the
| counter-notice process, which gives the plaintiff ten business
| days to file a lawsuit, but then cancels the informal copyright
| complaint if the time period ends without that lawsuit being
| filed.
|
| In this case, sending a counter-notice (free), filing for a
| declaratory judgment and asking for an injunction to prevent
| additional malicious filings would probably be the most direct
| pathway to relief.
|
| Filing bar complaints isn't likely to work all that well,
| because it doesn't really map to the typical things that state
| bar associations really look to pursue. The vast majority of
| bar complaints result in nothing, and most of the ones that are
| deemed valid result in mandatory CLE rather than more
| substantive penalties.
| yeahbutiguess wrote:
| 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.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| So if you're rich and have the time there may be
| consequences, but ultimately since anyone can file a false
| DMCA notice, there's really no assurance that you will ever
| get your own lawyer's fees back let alone damages (even if
| they were awarded).
|
| Perjury is a pretty terrible mechanism, frankly. The whole
| law was and is poorly conceived.
| cesaref wrote:
| 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.
| yeahbutiguess wrote:
| He wasn't involved, from all accounts.
| SideQuark wrote:
| Ideas aren't copyrightable. If they're not using his code
| or art or actual copyrightable materials, then there is no
| copyright infringement.
| thfuran wrote:
| 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.
| Symbiote wrote:
| To file a DMCA complaint you must be the copyright holder,
| or authorized to act on their behalf.
| thfuran wrote:
| Yes, and it's only that assertion that is made under
| penalty of perjury, not the assertion that the targeted
| work actually infringes on that copyright.
| yeahbutiguess wrote:
| So, if they aren't the copyright holder (as in this case)
| they have committed perjury by asserting they are.
| thfuran wrote:
| Possibly not if they thought they had a valid claim, but
| I really don't know how that would work out in practice.
| Steltek wrote:
| 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 by mistake or misidentification, shall be
| liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees,
| incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or
| copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service
| provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the
| result of the service provider relying upon such
| misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the
| material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing
| the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
| 17 U.S.C.A. SS 512
| derefr wrote:
| > It also needs to not be some "DMCA Lite" contractual
| mechanism like Youtube's shitty ContentID system.
|
| Why not? By my reading of the section you quoted, it stands
| independently from its parent sections; anyone who makes a
| legal claim of copyright infringement, or pursues action
| under the principle that such a claim exists, would seemingly
| be liable for damages if they're "knowingly materially
| misrepresenting" the facts of that infringement, _whether or
| not_ in the context of a DMCA takedown claim.
|
| Which, I mean, obviously; that's _already_ the law, without
| the DMCA having to say anything additionally about it. If
| someone threatens legal action against you unless you do X,
| and you do X, and it costs you money, and then you find out
| it was a lie and they had no basis for their legal action --
| then you can totally sue them for damages, and you 'll
| _probably_ win. The DMCA just provides a very explicit basis
| for evaluating that particular situation without referring to
| any other bodies of potentially-conflicting case-law, so as
| to turn that "probably" into a "definitely."
| kube-system wrote:
| > anyone who makes _a legal claim_ of copyright
| infringement
|
| The answer is right there, my emphasis added. YouTube's
| internal mechanisms, a la ContentID, are not processes
| which are a part of the legal system. They're corporate
| policies.
|
| It is worth noting that this distinction is irrelevant to
| this article, however. As this article says this _was_ a
| DMCA claim. So any potential false claims in this case _do_
| carry this potential penalty.
| derefr wrote:
| > The answer is right there, my emphasis added. YouTube's
| internal mechanisms, a la ContentID, are not processes
| which are a part of the legal system. They're corporate
| policies.
|
| No, that's not what I meant. I meant, "any claim that can
| be interpreted in a court of law as _being equivalent to_
| saying you _intend_ to sue for copyright infringement and
| _have a legal basis_ to do so. "
|
| In the same sense that a handshake contract is still a
| binding contract, a regular letter telling someone that
| you're aware they're violating your copyright -- and
| which doesn't explicitly disclaim any interest in
| pursuing legal action -- can still be interpreted as a
| threat of legal action; and therefore, if proven to be
| based on knowingly false claims, as injurious perjury.
|
| To be clear, it's not _YouTube_ making this claim; it 's
| the IP owner making the claim, when they _register_ the
| IP in the ContentID system. Such a registration is
| equivalent in the spirit of the law to notoriously
| claiming 1. you _are_ the IP 's true owner, and 2. that
| you _do not_ license use of your IP for use by others
| without your prior consent; and that therefore 3. you
| _have an interest_ in pursuing action against all future
| unlicensed use of your IP, whether that action is using
| the DMCA, within the framework of the legal system
| outside of the DMCA specifically, or through extralegal
| means.
|
| By analogy, consider what sort of verbal claim of intent
| to commit a crime (e.g. selling illegal drugs) is
| necessary in a police sting to trigger an arrest. You
| don't need to actually have committed the crime (i.e.
| hand the undercover officer any drugs, or even prove you
| _have_ any drugs); you merely need to make it clear that
| you are actively working to set up the conditions
| necessary to carry out the crime (i.e. to agree
| /negotiate a price for the drugs you may have.)
|
| In this case, a judge would basically be looking for the
| point of "stated intent to commit perjury." Which happens
| as soon as the ContentID for the video is registered!
| kube-system wrote:
| Yes, generally speaking legal threats which are not made
| in good faith can cross the line into being illegal, e.g.
| extortion. But that isn't because they violate DMCA
| 512(f). And I think it a a bit of a stretch to say that
| abusing ContentID is a legal threat. The number of
| ContentID claims that result in legal action rounds to
| zero.
|
| Had anyone ever successfully sued in response to a false
| non-DMCA copyright claim?
| cratermoon wrote:
| > you can totally sue them for damages, and you'll probably
| win
|
| Yeah, you can _totally_ sue Disney or Warner Bros if they
| file a false infringement claim against you. You 'll
| definitely _not_ win unless you have hundreds of thousands
| of dollars to go up against their phalanxes of corporate
| lawyers.
|
| The DMCA doesn't take into account unequal parties.
| derefr wrote:
| In theory that is a problem; in practice, the companies
| making _knowingly false_ ContentID claims are 99% of the
| time small actors. Just like patent trolls are 99% of the
| time small actors.
|
| Mind you, I say _knowingly false_. Big companies
| _unknowingly_ make false claims all the time, because
| they don 't know what-all they actually own -- but you
| can't sue them for that anyway, since there's no _mens
| rea_ there.
| [deleted]
| brarsanmol wrote:
| 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]
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| The more I hear about 'popular creators' or 'influencers'
| the more it seems like a popular career for people with
| character flaws that can't be easily hidden in face-to-face
| business environments.
| cld8483 wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| 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]
| cratermoon wrote:
| "DMCA mechanics just not works"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-19 23:02 UTC)