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 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.
Like it or not, the US has an adversarial legal system -- and therefore relies on the injured to enforce their rights in court. It seems to me the way to stop this from happening is to sue the takedown provider and the Graceware guy. Damages are hard to prove for a museum, but attorney's fees are clearly covered.
Generally automated take down services are not my favorite business - the DMCA has strong penalties for infringement baked in, and one reason those penalties exist is that there is a strong enforcement clause that the takedown notices are made in good faith. There is no way these were made in good faith based on the facts described.
> 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.
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 the copyright "submission". I don't think it's just some random crazy person. It's true that they're behaving in a strange way and utilizing shady overseas institutions, but the owner of Rodik is listed in the Panama Papers as having an offshore company in the Cayman Islands ( https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/74594 ) so that fits his MO.
As for motivation, in Japan there's much less of a cultural norm around sharing information publicly compared to the West. It's much more "if I have this thing and you don't, and I don't know you, why should I give it to you?" Some people will even get annoyed with you if you follow them on Twitter and you don't know them, or if you link to their website without asking them first. With that context, I don't think there needs to be much of a motivation beyond "people are posting videos and copies of my game online and I don't want them to".
Of course whoever is doing this doesn't seem to want to make themselves known publicly besides all the takedown notices, so I doubt we'll ever conclusively find out who they are. Much of what was being taken down is valid fair use, so even if it is someone associated with the original developer I don't really feel sorry for them getting their automated takedown request powers taken away.
>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 the copyright "submission".
Eh I am a bit of a collector and this line of thinking would let me establish copyright for a ton of games I have some precious treasures from.
Also I know a guy who worked for Sega and Nintendo for a while who is still sitting on a stack of design docs from his time in both, and he definitely doesn't own the IP for any of their games.
I suspect this person has located or inherited these items and is trying to establish copyright in the same way that Craig Wright is trying to pass himself off as Satoshi.
In fact they just spent a few thousand dollars according to the article. But they cost the museum probably 200k+ in time and legal fees - asymmetric copyright warfare.
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 important targets.
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.
Detailed story, very helpful. You nerd baited me, so I went ahead and read 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
Like it or not, the US has an adversarial legal system -- and therefore relies on the injured to enforce their rights in court. It seems to me the way to stop this from happening is to sue the takedown provider and the Graceware guy. Damages are hard to prove for a museum, but attorney's fees are clearly covered.Generally automated take down services are not my favorite business - the DMCA has strong penalties for infringement baked in, and one reason those penalties exist is that there is a strong enforcement clause that the takedown notices are made in good faith. There is no way these were made in good faith based on the facts described.
The word "knowingly" makes getting even with takedown trolls almost impossible because you have to prove their intent.
> 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.
None of this would have happened if there were any real world consequences to sending fraudulent DMCA takedowns.
So no one has discovered the motivation of this person? They must have spent a lot of money to engage in this behavior.
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 the copyright "submission". I don't think it's just some random crazy person. It's true that they're behaving in a strange way and utilizing shady overseas institutions, but the owner of Rodik is listed in the Panama Papers as having an offshore company in the Cayman Islands ( https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/74594 ) so that fits his MO.
As for motivation, in Japan there's much less of a cultural norm around sharing information publicly compared to the West. It's much more "if I have this thing and you don't, and I don't know you, why should I give it to you?" Some people will even get annoyed with you if you follow them on Twitter and you don't know them, or if you link to their website without asking them first. With that context, I don't think there needs to be much of a motivation beyond "people are posting videos and copies of my game online and I don't want them to".
Of course whoever is doing this doesn't seem to want to make themselves known publicly besides all the takedown notices, so I doubt we'll ever conclusively find out who they are. Much of what was being taken down is valid fair use, so even if it is someone associated with the original developer I don't really feel sorry for them getting their automated takedown request powers taken away.
>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 the copyright "submission".
Eh I am a bit of a collector and this line of thinking would let me establish copyright for a ton of games I have some precious treasures from.
Also I know a guy who worked for Sega and Nintendo for a while who is still sitting on a stack of design docs from his time in both, and he definitely doesn't own the IP for any of their games.
I suspect this person has located or inherited these items and is trying to establish copyright in the same way that Craig Wright is trying to pass himself off as Satoshi.
In fact they just spent a few thousand dollars according to the article. But they cost the museum probably 200k+ in time and legal fees - asymmetric copyright warfare.
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.
> 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 important targets.
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