World of JRPGs

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] misk@piefed.social 4 points 5 months ago (12 children)

If it was an abuse it could be challenged but there are no grounds as Sega owns leaked stuff.

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

Just because someone owns the copyright to something doesn't mean it's illegal to distribute. Fair use.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] misk@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children)

Is this why no one challenged Atlus on their streaming restrictions successfully?

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (9 children)

Ah yes the famously zero risk action of signing a legal form under penalty of perjury.

"Getting robbed? Just say no! Robbers cannot legally rob you if you say no!"

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] misk@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children)

You can challenge DMCA and the other side has to actually follow up in court. If you’re sure of your case why has nobody done it? There are loads of people with financial incentive to do so which is enough to get things going in capitalism usually. My guess? They know there’s no case and Atlus can do it legally.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

No, the filer has another appeal (same form) then it's up to the uploader to sue.

https://dmcaauthority.com/how-to-appeal-a-dmca-takedown-notice/

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] misk@piefed.social 0 points 5 months ago*

Are you getting this from an LLM or your butt?

After filing a counter-notice, the content creator enters a critical phase in the DMCA process, wherein the copyright owner must respond to the appeal within a specified timeframe, either accepting the rebuttal or taking further action, such as filing a lawsuit.

The actual issue is that you’re getting strikes on your YouTube / Twitch account. You can still host this stuff outside of US and their allies jurisdiction but you wouldn’t make any money that way - which shows that most of those affected are after money.

parent

[–] hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

Because legal battles with massive corporations are time consuming, expensive, and risky?

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] misk@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

Do you know of a case where DMCA takedown was followed up by a corporation and then dragged out into a long legal battle? You either have rights to content or don’t and establishing that in case of leaked advertisements seems to be quite straight forward. I’m pretty sure leakers didn’t purchase those rights because there’s no way to do so right now. One could argue that if you purchase the game then you should have right to share parts of it under fair use and I agree but the game is not even out.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

When you receive a DMCA notice you can respond with a counter-claim notice that says the claim is incorrect and that you're willing to go to court about it. This could be because you have distribution rights, because of fair use, or for any other reason that would make the claim invalid. The copyright holder then has 14 days to file a case to sue the alleged infringing party. If they don't, the notice can be ignored and any third party host must restore access to the files.

Whether these files should be accessible under fair use, I don't know, but at that point it's up to the court.

Point being, if you file a counter-claim you're basically saying go ahead and sue me then. If a company with deep pockets has a reason to think they can enforce the claim, they probably will take you to court. Even if you win, you're going to have to pay for a lawyer and deal with a court case.

https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca/dmca-counter-notice-process/

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] misk@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

I don’t disagree with any of this. It’s just that companies rarely if ever follow through with a lawsuit if they’re abusing DMCA. For them the strikes YouTube / Twitch influencers get on their business accounts is enough of a deterrent. In this case nobody is even bothering filing counterclaims because they know they’d have a very weak case.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child)

That's really the purpose of how DMCA is set up. It gives websites that host files uploaded by third parties a way to respond to copyright violation claims that removes their liability. They don't have to act as an arbiter, they can simply act on the claim and then act on a counter-claim if the claim is disputed. YouTube is a little different, because they take it on themselves to look for potential violations ahead of time, but the benefit of being able to host unknown content without liability is still there.

Whether a company follows through with a lawsuit once they get a counter-claim is ultimately up to their priorities. Though I imagine the number of people who ever bother to file a counter-claim is probably vanishingly small. But if a company the size of Sega is bothering to send DMCA notices in the first place, I don't think I'd bet on them ignoring the counter-claim, personally. Any counter-claim they ignore is an argument for public availability and thus fair use.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] misk@piefed.social 1 point 5 months ago*

There are people making counterclaims because if you own content or need to extract ad revenue of your derivative but legal content then you know the other side won’t follow through. Making frivolous counterclaims on content you don’t own is an obviously futile endeavour, hence it doesn’t happen.