46
GTA 6: Florida Joker Demands $2 Million From Rockstar for "Taking" His Life; Gets Roasted By Red Dead's Arthur Morgan Instead (mp1st.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/games@sh.itjust.works
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Florida Joker is in the news again, this time demanding to speak with Rockstar Games, or to be given $1-2 million over his likeness in GTA 6.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

Sure. But a cease and desist requires a lawsuit, DMCA just requires filling out a form, so the burden of proof is much lower. That's my point.

RS may be able to win even sketchy cease and desist suits, but that costs them money, so they're less likely to bother unless you get really popular.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A cease and desist is literally a letter. The court is not involved in any way.

    A DMCA claim only applies to copyright infringement, not any other illegal use of IP, and you can counter claim with just as little work if your usage is legitimate and force them to actually go to court to be able to require to website to remove it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, a cease and desist is just a letter with no legal obligation whatsoever. I could send one to Rockstar today. The interesting part is the threat of legal action, so I wouldn't send one unless I had a solid case. The letter itself isn't interesting, the judge's order during or after the ensuing legal battle is.

    And yes, a DMCA should only apply to copyright infringement, but there's no legal obligation to actually prove that in court before sending the request. Since the request is sent to the hosting service (e g. YouTube or GitHub) instead of the creator of the content, the content is often taken down before the creator even hears about the request. It is not in the hosting service's interests to fight such claims, nor look much more closely than to verify that the sender seems like they likely own the allegedly infringing content.

    If you host your own content, yes, you're responsible for whether you take it down before being legally obligated to. Most people use a popular hosting service, especially for something like a video where any form of popularity will likely overwhelm their hosting. That's why people use services like YouTube, they don't want to deal with scaling if demand takes off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The threat of legal action is the same with or without a formal letter. It's 5 minutes of a lawyer's time. The barrier is zero. Anyone can send one for any reason with no cause.

    The hosting provider is not obligated to investigate or defend against DMCA claims. If they receive a valid counter claim, they are permitted to host it again until actual legal action is initiated, in a courtroom. They don't receive them for the exact same reason people don't respond The barrier of a DMCA takedown after the trivial counter claim is much higher than a cease and desist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The hosting provider is free to ignore counterclaims as well, and they frequently do. So I'm practice, the DMCA is much more effective than a cease and desist when it comes to major content hosts.

    Things rarely get to an actual, legally compelled takedown because content hosts so often voluntarily take down content even when there's a valid counterclaim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nobody is using DMCA requests on YouTube, your biggest example. YouTube has an easier process entirely unrelated to the DMCA.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Right, and that exists as a direct reaction to the DMCA. YouTube didn't want to deal with the legal process of a DMCA takedown, so they provided a process to shortcut that. Unless I'm mistaken, without the DMCA, lawyers would need to go after content creators, not hosts, to get infringing content removed, so YouTube would not feel the need to automate the process as it has.

    That's what I mean about the DMCA essentially causing this setup. It's the same idea as a cease and desist scaring people into complying even when they're within the bounds of fair use, except the host has little if any reason to resist spurious claims. If lawyers can go after hosts, hosts will protect themselves to avoid legal fights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Without the DMCA safe harbor provision, they'd be directly liable for content uploaded by users. Taking stuff down wouldn't protect them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I don't think that's true, the law generally doesn't apply if you unknowingly are in possession of Illegal goods. So it would need to be proven that the host knew it was illegal.

    Do you have evidence that a host was successfully held legally liable for unknowingly hosting illegal/unlicensed content? The Napster case is the closest I know of (post DMCA though), and that centered on whether they knew about the infringing content, as well as whether they promptly removed infringing content once they knew about it. This is certainly related to safe harbor provisions, but I'm interested to know of any examples before the DMCA was in place, because I have my doubts that they're truly necessary. To me it sounds like a way to hand even more control to copyright holders since they merely need to send a notice-and-takedown request instead of actually proving anything (at least that's my reading of Section 512 of Title 17).

    That said, they're are better ways to handle it imo. For example, strengthening rights and responsibilities of individuals over submitted content could force hosts to explicitly partner with them to profit from it, which means they'll share liability and thus be expected to put more effort into verifying legality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    No a cease and desist doesn’t require a lawsuit, where does that apply? You have your lawyer draft a letter and if they ignore it, than you have to go to court and deal with it, but these aren’t used frivolously like DMCAs so they are usually followed.

    You can’t DMCA something that isn’t copyright infringement, if you’re hosting it yourself, a DMCA doesn’t even really apply to you either. It’s for third party hosters. And you still need proof regardless, you can’t just dmca stuff and not follow through with proof and enforcement.

    Your point is inherently flawed it seems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s for third party hosters. And you still need proof regardless, you can’t just dmca stuff and not follow through with proof and enforcement.

    Most content is hosted via a third party, and the more popular third parties (e.g. YouTube) don't seem to check the proof, they just take it down.

    The cease and desist requires a judge, so it needs to actually have proof, so the barrier is much higher.

    If you self-host, sure, but very few people actually do that, especially for something like a parody where reaching a broad audience is the entire point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    You can get a judge to order and injunction for a cease and desist which make it’s legally binding, but it’s not the only method available.

    I can send you a cease and desist to stop commenting on my comments, if you don’t I would either than take you to court, or drop it.

    A dmca means nothing to the person who did the copyright infringement, great I can’t put the video on YouTube, on to the next one… how inconvenient and obstructive to their work.

    You realize you’re on the fediverse where anyone can Self host instances… yeah?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You realize you’re on the fediverse where anyone can Self host instances… yeah?

    Sure, but how many actually do? And how likely is RS to find out that someone posted something on the Fediverse? I know we all like it, but it's still a very small community and probably not worth their time.

    People tend to post stuff to YouTube and then link to it from Reddit, Lemmy, etc, and that's where the DMCA gets involved. How is RS going to send a cease and desist to me when I'm using an anonymous account? I don't even have my email configured w/ Lemmy. If I hosted my own instance, I suppose they could send it through my DNS registrar and/or hosting provider, but I'm guessing they'd go the DMCA route on Lemmy or Reddit just like they would with YouTube.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Almost 13,000 instances as of right now. I also own multiple websites, anyone who runs a business has their own website. I don’t think you realize how easy it is to have your own place to host content.

    You don’t think RS lawyers aren’t constantly searching the net for stuff that breaks their IPs rules? It has nothing to do with size. They’ll find it.

    I love how you’re still on about it DMCAs, drop it, that’s lost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You don’t think RS lawyers aren’t constantly searching the net for stuff

    They certainly are, but even I find it hard to search Lemmy, I doubt RS lawyers would bother. They're only going to search for things on the major sites, and Lemmy isn't a major site.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Lemmy and other fediverses shows up on Google and other search engines, and can use booleans to search websites from Googleand other search engines. They know how to make it easy even if you don’t.

    Can even automate it with a script and have it pop out a list of new websites every morning.

    You don’t need to believe, it happens already mate. And cease and desists are far worse than DMCAs since there is no legal ramifications for ignoring a DMCA. Also parody is protected from copyright claim, so they couldn’t DMCA a parody anyways, it would only be able to be dealt with through a cease and desist. Which we already figured out doesn’t require a lawsuit, but you seem to want to ignore this key detail.

    Blocked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Lemmy and other fediverses shows up on Google and other search engines

    They really don't. The only way I get it is if I do something like "site:lemmy-instance ". It can be done, but I really don't think a lawyer is going to bother, much like they likely don't bother with smaller forums and whatnot.

    it already happens

    On lemmy? Can you give me an example?

    they couldn't DMCA a parody anyways

    They absolutely can. It doesn't need to be legal, just scary enough for the website to not bother looking into it further. That happens all the time on Github and Youtube, it's not exactly new.

    Blocked

    Okay. That seems a bit extreme, but whatever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent