• 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]

Remij

Member
Apr 23, 2009
2,300
322
855
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
Yes, and no. I'm sure in many cases, the 'potentially infringing file/s' could already have caused damage to the company making the claim if they were to wait until they knew exactly if it infringed a copyright. Lets face it, DSfix was a known entity, known and promoted as a game enhancing mod for Dark Souls. It was hugely popular, and for good reason. It's strange that this would happen after all this time...considering what I just said... but not so much when you look at the issue surrounding DS's recently released 'debug' build and the fact that DSfix was recently updated. So they make a big sweep and file claims against anything known to alter or modify DS. It doesn't help that they just made the switch to steamworks from GFWL, so there's already going to be eyes on any potential problems that could come with that.

So you have a mistake happen, like what I said it probably was from the beginning. The problem Durante has with the DMCA is that there's no repercussions for filing an invalid claim for infringement, which is completely understandable and must be very frustrating for certain people who put a lot of time and hard work into things like this. They should be made to be more stringent on their claims to make sure they are actually valid before they are made and carried through, I agree.

Surely they can't just go pulling anything for anything.. however I think they look at it as the damage that could potentially be done to the copyright holder is primary concern, being able to have the mistake reversed after the fact is a fairly small burden in comparison.
 

theSlacker

Member
Mar 21, 2010
7,870
0
690
Are you shitting me, is there actually a DMCA defense force in here now? Please tell me that this is some really good trolling.
 
Apr 19, 2012
4,751
0
0
The Blue Marble
Nice to see everything got cleared up. Wouldn't seem very wise for them too try and remove a MOD that makes the game actually playable on PC, not to mention lets us engage in Jolly Cooperation!


Companies tend to frown on copyright infringement.
They kinda released it though. Albeit by accident. Also, as far as I've seen everything you do is client-based, so ti doesn't carry over to PvP or Co-op. It's just fun to mess around with. Like the ragdolling of your co-op partner, or take over bosses and using their movesets.
 

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
35,130
2,451
1,475
They kinda released it though. Albeit by accident. Also, as far as I've seen everything you do is client-based, so ti doesn't carry over to PvP or Co-op. It's just fun to mess around with. Like the ragdolling of your co-op partner, or take over bosses and using their movesets.
Exactly. They distributed the executable to the public. It may have been a mistake, but treating this like stolen material or something is ridiculous.
 

Orayn

Member
Jul 4, 2010
34,290
3
820
Minnesota
Exactly. They distributed the executable to the public. It may have been a mistake, but treating this like stolen material or something is ridiculous.
Regardless of what happened initially, uploading the executable is still redistributing their copyrighted material without permission. It may be unfortunate for people who just want it for innocent purposes, but Bamco are well within their rights to request a takedown.
 

ANDS

Member
Jan 18, 2012
2,851
13
490
teiresias said:
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.
No. They wouldn't. Never mind that it just wouldn't happen (right Joe Schmoe files a DMCA against Disney YouTube channel and somehow gets the content blocked), but they aren't going to waste time pursuing this further for the lost 3 bucks or so in ad revenue.

Durante said:
I'm not doing that, and I have no idea where you're getting that from.
Just looking at the comments; there are clear cases of gaming corporations being incredibly heavy handed with their digital rights management. Here it seems we have a case of a company not being familiar with the good mods and the bad, having it removed and then immediately reversing course when their error was pointed out. The level of offense just doesn't match the situation - at all.

RyanDG said:
I don't see how you can argue that it isn't arbitrary.
Arbitrary would suggest they were just willy nilly going after mods/alterations. That isn't the case; they seemed to be after a very specific form of mod for the game and DSFix got swept into the other "bad stuff".

the Slacker said:
Are you shitting me, is there actually a DMCA defense force in here now?
Yea. Free all the things! As someone already mentioned, DMCA isn't perfect and it isn't pretty, however until congress comes up with a better way to deal with copyrighted material in the digital age, it's what you've got.
 

Alo81

Low Poly Gynecologist
Jun 24, 2012
13,143
0
640
steamcommunity.com
No. They wouldn't. Never mind that it just wouldn't happen (right Joe Schmoe files a DMCA against Disney YouTube channel and somehow gets the content blocked), but they aren't going to waste time pursuing this further for the lost 3 bucks or so in ad revenue.



Just looking at the comments; there are clear cases of gaming corporations being incredibly heavy handed with their digital rights management. Here it seems we have a case of a company not being familiar with the good mods and the bad, having it removed and then immediately reversing course when their error was pointed out. The level of offense just doesn't match the situation - at all.



Arbitrary would suggest they were just willy nilly going after mods/alterations. That isn't the case; they seemed to be after a very specific form of mod for the game and DSFix got swept into the other "bad stuff".



Yea. Free all the things! As someone already mentioned, DMCA isn't perfect and it isn't pretty, however until congress comes up with a better way to deal with copyrighted material in the digital age, it's what you've got.
The fact that DSFix got dmca'd when it wasn't intended to totally makes it fall into the list of arbitrary
 

Gvaz

Banned
Apr 7, 2010
11,619
0
0
USA
gvaz.notsleepytime.org
Yea. Free all the things! As someone already mentioned, DMCA isn't perfect and it isn't pretty, however until congress comes up with a better way to deal with copyrighted material in the digital age, it's what you've got.
Here's how to deal with it:

Is another company using a company's intellectual material without permission and/or making money off it? If so, give em a fine.

is a random person using a company's IP and making money off it? fine. not making money off it? who gives a shit.