• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DSFix 2.3 taken down after DMCA complaint [Up: Was mistake; being resolved]

RyanDG

Member
Mar 26, 2007
4,030
0
0
How exactly is the fact that someone can take down an arbitrary non-infringing file without any consequences to them not an indictment against the DMCA?
I was about to ask the same question... There is a right way and a wrong way to handle potentially infringing material on the internet, and unfortunately, the DMCA has repeatedly shown time and time again that it is definitely the 'wrong' way. This situation is just another example of how the legislation fails at protecting the consumer, fails at really protecting a company's intellectual property, and furthermore, can potentially threaten the livelihood of people writing code or providing media on the web.

It's a relic of an era that was almost two decades ago.
 

Barack Lesnar

Banned
Jun 7, 2010
19,181
0
0
How exactly is the fact that someone can take down an arbitrary non-infringing file without any consequences to them not an indictment against the DMCA?
It was clearly a mistake. They hired some other company to take down infringing files and yours was a part of it but it was an accident. The thread was a bit dramatic but it probably made them correct their error faster so it worked in the end.
 

RyanDG

Member
Mar 26, 2007
4,030
0
0
It was clearly a mistake. They hired some other company to take down infringing files and yours was a part of it but it was an accident. The thread was a bit dramatic but it probably made them correct their error faster so it worked in the end.
The fact that it was a mistake is just further argument against the DMCA. Just because it was taken down by accident, and will be put back up eventually, doesn't discredit two things: #1) we have a piece of legislation that allows companies to essentially threaten hosting services and media providers into removing non-infringing material without the oversight to verify if the material is infringing to begin with, and #2) in some cases, 'accidental' removal of non-infringing material can threaten someone's financial livelihood if they do not get the same outpouring of support that Durante got in this situation. Both of these issues are really critical to me, and shouldn't be overlooked because this issue is being resolved (when there shouldn't have been an issue at all...).
 

Durante

Member
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
It was clearly a mistake. They hired some other company to take down infringing files and yours was a part of it but it was an accident. The thread was a bit dramatic but it probably made them correct their error faster so it worked in the end.
The issue is that the DMCA allows a company to take down arbitrary files, and there is no real consequence for them if they do so erroneously.

Also, I think you are being overly positive by saying that the general uproar made them "correct their error faster". I'm in the privileged position with DSfix that this quickly generated an outburst, and that means it didn't turn into a huge issue for me personally in the end, sure. However, for most files and most people, that wouldn't be the case, and that's the issue with the DMCA.
 

ANDS

Member
Jan 18, 2012
2,851
13
490
teiresias said:
And then the corporation would likely turn around and sue for damages in millions of dollars.
On what grounds? What damages? What is the injury that is suffered by the corporation that they would waste time retaliating against a private citizen that had a copyright claim thrown out?

Durante said:
How exactly is the fact that someone can take down an arbitrary non-infringing file without any consequences to them not an indictment against the DMCA?
It isn't arbitrary. They didn't remove a word document of the leaked The Interview script. Seriously, I am a fan of your contribution to PC gaming, but limping about like you just survived a 10-round bout with Mike Tyson over what was CLEARLY a mistake is a bit much. And no, I don't see this as an indictment against DMCA since - shock and awe - you were able to remedy this with minimal effort.

There are very clear issues with DMCA being used as a "shoot first ask questions later if we feel like it" tool by corporations; this just isn't it.
 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,931
4,680
670
Canada
Glad this all worked out. I was figuring it was a dumb mistake and was going to respond last night when I saw it but I knew it would just be a rage post. Only reason I bought DS1 on PC was because of this patch. The only reason I buy any title with limited options on PC is when I know Durante is interested in the game. Thankfully he likes the same kind of games I do.

To the pub jock riders in here. Making people aware of shitty DMCA claims is only a good thing. Shaming these fuckers in public is fine. They can get thicker skins if they want to throw around these baseless claims that allow for guilty until proven innocent.
 

Barack Lesnar

Banned
Jun 7, 2010
19,181
0
0
The fact that it was a mistake is just further argument against the DMCA. Just because it was taken down by accident, and will be put back up eventually, doesn't discredit two things: #1) we have a piece of legislation that allows companies to essentially threaten hosting services and media providers into removing non-infringing material without the oversight to verify if the material is infringing to begin with, and #2) in some cases, 'accidental' removal of non-infringing material can threaten someone's financial livelihood if they do not get the same outpouring of support that Durante got in this situation. Both of these issues are really critical to me, and shouldn't be overlooked because this issue is being resolved (when there shouldn't have been an issue at all...).
I guess I was looking at it at a smaller scale. The DMCA has to exist. There's nothing we can do about it. These companies have to protect their intellectual property. Some third-party company hired by Bamco accidentally took down some DMCA-compliant files for their niche video game that no one outside of a couple million people have heard of. It was a mistake, an accident. The amount of shit they've received, including threats (not from us but still) for this doesn't seem proportionate to the extent of the mistake.
 
Apr 19, 2011
21,374
1
530
There are very clear issues with DMCA being used as a "shoot first ask questions later if we feel like it" tool by corporations; this just isn't it.
That...that is exactly what happened. They issued the takedown without contacting Durante first.
 

Barack Lesnar

Banned
Jun 7, 2010
19,181
0
0
That...that is exactly what happened. They issued the takedown without contacting Durante first.
"Contacting Durante"...? Come on, do you think this third-party company has any idea who he is or what the patch was for? Can't expect them to know something like that. Most of Bamco probably doesn't even know except for maybe the actual dev team of Dark Souls.
 

teiresias

Member
Jun 11, 2004
17,261
1
0
On what grounds? What damages? What is the injury that is suffered by the corporation that they would waste time retaliating against a private citizen that had a copyright claim thrown out?
If someone filed a takedown request against a corporation's profit-generating product that turned out to be frivolous, you really think they wouldn't sue for damages equal to and exceeding (gotta get those statutory damages man!) the amount the corporation claims to have lost while the content wasn't available?

You're living in a fantasy land.
 

Durante

Member
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
It isn't arbitrary. They didn't remove a word document of the leaked The Interview script. Seriously, I am a fan of your contribution to PC gaming, but limping about like you just survived a 10-round bout with Mike Tyson over what was CLEARLY a mistake is a bit much.
I'm not doing that, and I have no idea where you're getting that from. The suggestion is somewhat offensive.

There are very clear issues with DMCA being used as a "shoot first ask questions later if we feel like it" tool by corporations; this just isn't it.
But that's exactly what happened.

Seriously, can you explain how the fact that a tool intended to prevent copyright infringement being used to take down a non-infringing file without consequences is not a problem with the tool?
 

FyreWulff

Member
Jan 21, 2010
39,743
0
0
The Internet
fyrewulff.com
There are very clear issues with DMCA being used as a "shoot first ask questions later if we feel like it" tool by corporations; this just isn't it.
People seem to forget you can file a counter claim and get your items restored. If someone DMCAs you over your own content and insists it's theirs after you counter claim, they get whacked with a perjury charge.

The reason hosts take DMCA requests at face value is because it's how they're protected from copyright infringement by users using their hosting and they don't have the time nor should they fight on behalf of every person. Nobody is going to fall on their sword for every little thing or they'll die from a thousand papercuts, financially.
 

RyanDG

Member
Mar 26, 2007
4,030
0
0
It isn't arbitrary. They didn't remove a word document of the leaked The Interview script. Seriously, I am a fan of your contribution to PC gaming, but limping about like you just survived a 10-round bout with Mike Tyson over what was CLEARLY a mistake is a bit much. And no, I don't see this as an indictment against DMCA since - shock and awe - you were able to remedy this with minimal effort.

There are very clear issues with DMCA being used as a "shoot first ask questions later if we feel like it" tool by corporations; this just isn't it.
I don't see how you can argue that it isn't arbitrary. We have lawyers and companies using the threat of DMCA legislation to have files removed off the internet without any oversight to show how the file is infringing on their IP rights to begin with. The impetus then gets placed onto the uploader (and in this case, the original creator), to prove that they have legal authority or rights to upload the material. This seems backwards to me, and seems to be working off a presumption of guilt. Furthermore, in the case of erroneous DMCA take downs, there's no built in mechanism in place to protect individual content creators and users from companies abusing the DMCA legislation.

If we value an open internet, erroneous DMCA notifications should be treated as harshly as a copyright infringement. There should be built in punishments for misusing the legislation, and in addition to that, the ability for creators to be compensated for the work and effort (and potential lost sales), that erroneous notifications can generate.
 

Trouble

Banned
Jul 22, 2009
15,877
2
0
Man that's good to hear, I guess you get what you give in terms of politeness. Also, who sent the threats haha? Some people really need to learn human interaction 101....

Huge relief regarding DSFix, it did seem like a mistake from the get go.
It's about ethics in games publishing.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
35,113
2,432
1,475
I guess I was looking at it at a smaller scale. The DMCA has to exist. There's nothing we can do about it. These companies have to protect their intellectual property. Some third-party company hired by Bamco accidentally took down some DMCA-compliant files for their niche video game that no one outside of a couple million people have heard of. It was a mistake, an accident. The amount of shit they've received, including threats (not from us but still) for this doesn't seem proportionate to the extent of the mistake.
No, fuck them. If the amount of care they put into copyright infringements is hiring some third-party who just shotguns everything they see without investigating anything, then they deserve all the flack they get.

The fact that there are absolutely no consequences for taking down files that are not in any infringing their rights--files that by all rights have absolutely nothing to do with them--is the problem. If they want to continue exploiting that problem for whatever reason, they deserve to all the bad PR in the world.
 

The Llama

Member
Nov 21, 2013
5,396
0
0
Philadelphia
I'm not doing that, and I have no idea where you're getting that from. The suggestion is somewhat offensive.

But that's exactly what happened.

Seriously, can you explain how the fact that a tool intended to prevent copyright infringement being used to take down a non-infringing file without consequences is not a problem with the tool?
There CAN BE consequences though. If you actually suffered economic harm, you could sue and be compensated for that (or more likely, they'd just offer you a settlement before trial to avoid the time and expense). Its not like there's no method to "fight back" against the DMCA.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
35,113
2,432
1,475
There CAN BE consequences though. If you actually suffered economic harm, you could sue and be compensated for that (or more likely, they'd just offer you a settlement before trial to avoid the time and expense). Its not like there's no method to "fight back" against the DMCA.
Yeah, the system is set up so that the only time there can be consequences is if a false claim happens against a corporation, pretty much.
 

Stratosphere

Member
Dec 15, 2013
3,124
0
0
I don't see an update in the OP, but based on the title update, should we see DSFix back up soon? I just bought DS on the steam sale, and was pretty bummed that I wouldn't be able to use this.
 

Durante

Member
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
I don't see an update in the OP, but based on the title update, should we see DSFix back up soon? I just bought DS on the steam sale, and was pretty bummed that I wouldn't be able to use this.
DSfix was always up (except for the 15 minutes or so it took me to rehost it).

If you're not actually harmed, why should you be able to get damages?
You shouldn't. But the company issuing the invalid takedown request should have to pay a nominal fee, otherwise they can arbitrarily take down any non-commercial non-infringing file with impunity.
 

DorkyMohr

Banned
Sep 5, 2014
1,093
0
215
Seriously, can you explain how the fact that a tool intended to prevent copyright infringement being used to take down a non-infringing file without consequences is not a problem with the tool?
Because you don't own dropbox? It's in dropbox's best interest to give priority to DMCA takedown notices because it protects their business.
 

Durante

Member
Oct 1, 2006
48,836
1
0
peter.metaclassofnil.com
Because you don't own dropbox? It's in dropbox's best interest to give priority to DMCA takedown notices because it protects their business.
I don't even know what you are talking about now. I never complained about dropbox, in fact I specifically remarked in this thread that how they acted was perfectly fine.

The current discussion is about the DMCA.
 

Chariot

Member
Jul 6, 2013
27,688
0
475
Someone sent death threats? LOL, jesus people are scummy as shit.
I didn't say that and neither did Mr. Rieck. He didn't specify what kind of threats. There could very well be a death threat included, but I don't know more than that the mail included threats.
 

SkeptiMism

Member
Oct 28, 2013
3,221
0
0
Finland
Fucking hell, you all deserve to play your games at 640x480 internal resolution at cinematic 24fps. What an embarrassing freakout over nothing.
To be clear, do you mean that guy who sent the death threats, or in general people in the thread who were outraged about this?

If it's the first case, you're certainly correct. If it's the latter, that's quite a reaction from you.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
35,113
2,432
1,475
If you're not actually harmed, why should you be able to get damages?
Oh, I'm not saying you should be able to, but surely you can agree that a system that allows for an infinite amount of inconveniencing people with impunity is not great, no?
 

Orayn

Member
Jul 4, 2010
34,290
3
820
Minnesota
To be clear, do you mean that guy who sent the death threats, or in general people in the thread who were outraged about this?

If it's the first case, you're certainly correct. If it's the latter, that's quite a reaction from you.
Well, it did get a little tiring to read page after page of "FUCK SCAMCO YOU GUYS ARE PURE EVIL AND THE WORST" after people had already figured out that this was very likely a mistake, though that's more of a generic forum annoyance than anything.
 

zashga

Member
Jul 28, 2011
1,976
0
0
Because you don't own dropbox? It's in dropbox's best interest to give priority to DMCA takedown notices because it protects their business.
You're not even disagreeing with him now. It's in Dropbox's best interest to immediately bow to DMCA claims because they can be penalized if they don't. The law is ridiculously one-sided in favor of claimants. Filing a claim is a no-effort, risk free endeavor. Even obviously false claims (like this one) have to be honored, and the claimant can laugh it off with an "oops my bad" in the unlikely event it generates a counterclaim (a much higher bar to clear than the original claim) or negative publicity.

Namco and other companies who abuse DMCA absolutely should be taken to task. The law itself was written to prevent that from happening in any realistic scenario.
 

riskVSreward

Member
Jan 31, 2008
5,717
33
1,180
Shout outs to the DMCA defense force in here, all of our laws should be built upon a presumption of guilt!

For real though, glad you got the shit sorted Durante.
 

Naminator

Banned
Jul 11, 2013
1,954
0
0
On what grounds? What damages? What is the injury that is suffered by the corporation that they would waste time retaliating against a private citizen that had a copyright claim thrown out?



It isn't arbitrary. They didn't remove a word document of the leaked The Interview script. Seriously, I am a fan of your contribution to PC gaming, but limping about like you just survived a 10-round bout with Mike Tyson over what was CLEARLY a mistake is a bit much. And no, I don't see this as an indictment against DMCA since - shock and awe - you were able to remedy this with minimal effort.

There are very clear issues with DMCA being used as a "shoot first ask questions later if we feel like it" tool by corporations; this just isn't it.
Uhhhh God my fucking head hurts.

If companies are able to take down things that they have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO without any kind of punishment is not an argument against DMCA then what could possibly be one.

Also the argument that this was taken care of quickly is fucking bullshit and you know it. The only reason that happened was because DSfix is popular, the only other way would be to be rich or a corporation with enough money to hire an army of lawyers. Any regular Joe would be utterly fucked and at the mercy of the corporation making the claim.

Seriously what do you people even get out of damage controlling for some faceless corporation that doesn't give a fuck about you.
 

SkeptiMism

Member
Oct 28, 2013
3,221
0
0
Finland
Well, it did get a little tiring to read page after page of "FUCK SCAMCO YOU GUYS ARE PURE EVIL AND THE WORST" after people had already figured out that this was very likely a mistake, though that's more of a generic forum annoyance than anything.
Very true, but that's unfortunately kind of the nature of Internet. Especially as there was no update on the original post.

Not that it justifies some of the silly reactions still, but I'd say it's somewhat understandable still.
 

epmode

Member
Jun 7, 2004
28,470
0
0
Seriously what do you people even get out of damage controlling for some faceless corporation that doesn't give a fuck about you.
After reading similar posts for years, I'm pretty sure it has to do with blind rage about "entitled" gamers complaining when they should be satisfied with the status quo. Either that or he actually sends DMCA takedown notices himself.
 

Syriel

Member
Sep 21, 2009
9,620
1
905
Western Branch: Probably doesn't actually exist. likely just some spinning records in a closet somewhere.
It's actually pretty decently sized. Nice office too.

Expecting Namco to make sure out of all the Dark Souls files there are circulating around, they may absolutely NOT touch anything called DSFix is a ridiculous expectation far removed from real priorities here. Namco isn't working against DSFix, but it also isn't the center of their world.
It is on the copyright holder to ensure that they are only sending out valid notices. A notice for something that is not theirs is in violation of the DMCA.

Interestingly enough, Warner Bros was sued for this very thing, though the case concluded in a settlement before it went to trial last fall.

So sanity prevailed. DMCA complaints seem like a blunt instrument typically used by people that don't have a full understanding of what's going on.
It depends on who is using them.

As an author, I've used DMCA complaints to force sites to remove work that was plagiarized wholesale. It's been effective, but I also manually verify each one.

False complaints make the whole system ineffective.

I'm glad to see this worked out but it always troubles me when I see problems solved because the person affected has a level of popularity. It makes me wonder what happens when someone does not have a platform to protest on (or be heard). If Durante was not as famous as he is these days would this still be resolved as easily? I'm always glad when it works out, but its still a bit scary to think what happens to people with no leverage against DMCA stuff.
A direct counter claim is the correct procedure.

1) Initial claim = immediate take down (but not deletion)
2) Counter claim = restoration of material

If initial claimant wants to take things further, they have to file suit in a court of law.

This doesn't make any sense. If a citizen brought some sort of copyright claim against a company, I'm sure they have recourse to (likely) get it tossed out, or defended.

Being copyright experts and "code" experts are two different things.

There are legit reasons to be annoyed by copyright claims, and DMCA; this situation isn't one of them.
This is exactly the type of situation to be annoyed. It is a blatantly false claim on its face and it should have never been made.

Verification needs to happen before the takedown notice, not after.

How exactly is the fact that someone can take down an arbitrary non-infringing file without any consequences to them not an indictment against the DMCA?
The only way there would be a consequence is if the person who had the false claim made against them (in this case Durante) counter-sued for the false claim. If no one counter sues (and many don't because they don't want the legal cost) then there is no consequence.

I guess I was looking at it at a smaller scale. The DMCA has to exist. There's nothing we can do about it. These companies have to protect their intellectual property. Some third-party company hired by Bamco accidentally took down some DMCA-compliant files for their niche video game that no one outside of a couple million people have heard of. It was a mistake, an accident. The amount of shit they've received, including threats (not from us but still) for this doesn't seem proportionate to the extent of the mistake.
The DMCA has to exist, but verification should come before the take down is sent. to not do so is negligent.

"Contacting Durante"...? Come on, do you think this third-party company has any idea who he is or what the patch was for? Can't expect them to know something like that. Most of Bamco probably doesn't even know except for maybe the actual dev team of Dark Souls.
Yes. If there is a question they should look at the file and verify that it infringes (before they claim that it infringes).

People seem to forget you can file a counter claim and get your items restored. If someone DMCAs you over your own content and insists it's theirs after you counter claim, they get whacked with a perjury charge.

The reason hosts take DMCA requests at face value is because it's how they're protected from copyright infringement by users using their hosting and they don't have the time nor should they fight on behalf of every person. Nobody is going to fall on their sword for every little thing or they'll die from a thousand papercuts, financially.
You can only pursue someone for a false claim by filing suit. If you don't do that, there are no consequences for doing so.
 

Corpekata

Banned
Jun 7, 2013
20,288
1
0
I thought my joke "You must play at 720p"posts were going to be the most ridiculous thing in the thread, but nope, DMCA defense squad represent.
 

Barack Lesnar

Banned
Jun 7, 2010
19,181
0
0
No, fuck them. If the amount of care they put into copyright infringements is hiring some third-party who just shotguns everything they see without investigating anything, then they deserve all the flack they get.
In an ideal world what you described is what should happen but the problem is there's hundreds if not thousands of copyright infringements these big companies have to deal with. It's just not feasible to look at each one individually so they hire a third-party company.
 

FF Seraphim

Member
May 20, 2014
4,499
0
355
Myrtle Beach
every single time. every single fucking time there is an issue with gaming someone has to go and do this shit. What the hell is wrong with these people? it doesn't make gamers look good and it certainly doesn't get you what you want. fuck
Its because they are human that this happens. It doesn't matter if they play games or whatnot. Just give anyone the slightest reason to act foolish or hateful and they will go all out. They do not care if it gets them what they want they just want to be violent be it through physical/mental/emotional means.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
35,113
2,432
1,475
In an ideal world what you described is what should happen but the problem is there's hundreds if not thousands of copyright infringements these big companies have to deal with. It's just not feasible to look at each one individually so they hire a third-party company.
Oh, for sure. I'm not saying it's the reality, just that I think it should be the reality.

In all facets of justice, I think it's far more important for the innocent to first not be harmed than it is to prosecute the guilty.
 

Jopie

Member
Jun 27, 2012
1,932
0
0
In an ideal world what you described is what should happen but the problem is there's hundreds if not thousands of copyright infringements these big companies have to deal with. It's just not feasible to look at each one individually so they hire a third-party company.
They should probably look into hiring better companies.
 

R_thanatos

Member
Apr 20, 2010
23,664
0
0
earth planet
"Contacting Durante"...? Come on, do you think this third-party company has any idea who he is or what the patch was for? Can't expect them to know something like that. Most of Bamco probably doesn't even know except for maybe the actual dev team of Dark Souls.
Sorry but they should make sure what is the file , what is in the file before making/sending a claim against it . That thrid party company was acting under some orders and should have made sure to do thejob properly

The issue is that there is no problem for them when they mess up, and if there was , they would check before sending complains , they don't because there is nothing for them to check the file when they can shoot on sight