• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Jim Sterling is being sued by Digital Homicide

Maledict

Member
Feb 16, 2013
8,779
1
0
I'm fairly use you can use fag in that way in the UK without it being in any way related to a homophobic slur.

Congrats Jim!
 

Maledict

Member
Feb 16, 2013
8,779
1
0
I think it was a typo, but you are correct.

A fag is a cigarette here.

"I'm going out for a quick fag"

Yep, and you can also use the phrase 'I can't be fagged' which doesn't relate to any of them as far as I know.

Edit: I'm a Brit as well despite how I wrote my first post!
 

bobnowhere

Member
May 27, 2010
7,649
0
590
Canberra, Australia
Fag

British
noun
noun: fag; plural noun: fags

1.
informal
a tiring or unwelcome task.
"it's too much of a fag to drive all the way there and back again"
synonyms: chore, slog, grind, drudgery, exertion, trouble, bother, pain, hardship, bore; informalsweat
"it's too much of a fag to drive all the way there and back"
2.
a junior pupil at a public school who does minor chores for a senior pupil.
"a fag at school who has suffered a well-earned beating"

verbinformal
verb: fag; 3rd person present: fags; past tense: fagged; past participle: fagged; gerund or present participle: fagging

1.
work hard, especially at a tedious task.
"he didn't have to fag away in a lab to get the right answer"
(of a public-school pupil) do minor chores for a senior pupil.
"the lower boys in each house fagged for members of the Library"

Origin
mid 16th century (as a verb in the sense ‘grow weary'): of unknown origin. Compare with flag4.

Obviously predates the now more common use. I wouldn't use it and it's a little provocative to use it in this way nowadays.
 

Baalzebup

Member
Sep 2, 2014
2,806
0
0
Espoo, Finland
I don't know how it works in the US but here the losing party has to cover the winning parties legal costs. Surely that would be the same for Jim so he won't be out of pocket
It is straight out mentioned in the court ruling that is showed in the SidAlpha video:
with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.

The thread name should be updated to past tense. Subtle, but effective way of updating the state of matters.
 

Lamptramp

Member
Jun 10, 2013
692
0
0
Germany/UK
Might be from fagged out meaning exhausted or tired, it does seem to fit the context of the sentence but it's still a poor choice of word.

Obviously predates the now more common use. I wouldn't use it and it's a little provocative to use it in this way nowadays.

Clearly given the context and given I'm not American thats what I meant. It wouldn't even make any sense had I been using it in a derogatory sense. I'd also disagree that its a poor choice or provocative (certainly that was not my intent).

However given the global nature of GAF and to make sure I don't cause any more derails I'll go back and edit my original post.
 

Fantastapotamus

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Aug 5, 2013
16,801
3
685
The Zoo
Well this sure took a stupidly long time. Well done Romine, you wasted everybody's time and money and managed to completely destroy your company in the mean time *slow clap*

Wonder if Jim will talk about it or if he'll just let it go.
 

Bulby

Member
Apr 24, 2015
539
14
365
Well this sure took a stupidly long time. Well done Romine, you wasted everybody's time and money and managed to completely destroy your company in the mean time *slow clap*

Wonder if Jim will talk about it or if he'll just let it go.

No way he wont talk about it, this is Jim Fucking Sterling Son!

But on a serious note, his anger at the abuse of fair use laws have been at the centre of his arguments for quite a while now. Even if he doesn't reference DH directly, Im sure he will talk about the precedent he will want this to set.
 

CyanideFuse

Member
Jul 16, 2012
2,170
0
425
UK
Congratulations are in order. Regardless of how frivolous the claim was it has still taken time, money and the mental energy for Jim to go through all this. Hopefully it serves as a warning against others who may have entertained the idea of taking court action.

If D.H. had put this amount of energy into honing a craft and made decent games then all this probably would never have happened.
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
May 19, 2006
30,264
0
1,440
I think Jim may counter-sue for compensation for his legal fees, but for nothing more. He'd get it, too. He's got a great lawyer.
He can't.
Could Jim pursue reimbursement of legal costs through a civil lawsuit?
No.
I feel like it was implied he would when Jim said this at the end of one of his recent Jimquisitions.
He can't.
Will he? Can't he file a counter suit to make the plaintiff pay for for the legal fees he caused?
No.
As of now he does, certainly a possibility though, be a nice outcome if Jim gives them a good spanken for wasting so much of his time.


Edit: As Cheerllee as said, it's also likely DH won't even have the money to pay, Jim will probably be merciful on them.
Doesn't matter, he can't.

Gonna sue Romine back.
He can't.
I don't know how it works in the US but here the losing party has to cover the winning parties legal costs. Surely that would be the same for Jim so he won't be out of pocket
It doesn't typically work that way in the US. This is a major difference between our legal system and yours. The American Rule is that parties typically pay for their own legal fees unless either (1) a statute (law) specifically provides otherwise or (2) the suit was premised in bad faith. While he may have been able to move for fees under the premise of bad faith, pro se parties, such as Romine, are given a lot more leeway when it comes to things such as this. Regardless, whether the suit was premised in bad faith or not, it's a moot point for the reason I explain below.

Here's a wiki article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney's_fees)
It is straight out mentioned in the court ruling that is showed in the SidAlpha video:


The thread name should be updated to past tense. Subtle, but effective way of updating the state of matters.
Exactly. It's right there in the filing; this is a joint submission by both parties. In Alabama this would have actually been styled as a "Joint Stipulation of Dismissal," but this is the exact same thing. Though filed by Romine, it was signed by both Romine and Jim's attorney, and almost certainly was drafted Jim's lawyer.

It states "the parties hereby stipulate and agree to the dismissal of all claims . . . with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees." Jim can't come back and sue Romine for his legal fees, because he's already agreed not to. In exchange, Romine is (1) dropping the suit (thus causing Jim to no longer incur legal fees) and (2) promising to actually think before filing DMCA takedown notices in the future (for whatever this is worth).
 

Steroyd

Member
Dec 27, 2006
25,915
0
0
England
Well this sure took a stupidly long time. Well done Romine, you wasted everybody's time and money and managed to completely destroy your company in the mean time *slow clap*

Wonder if Jim will talk about it or if he'll just let it go.

Jim Fucking Sterling Son? Let it go? *Laughs hysterically*

If I was a betting man he'll most likely talk about SidAlpha and Dentola Studio's fuckery and SUBTLY use Digital Homicide as an example.

Nice. I guess now Jim could sue Nintendo about its interpretation of fair use.

Why? There's nothing Jim can sue Nintendo for in terms of lost revenue because he doesn't monetise his YouTube videos and the only reward he could realistically get out of it is Nintendo to put their hands up and admit they were dicks, that's not worth racking up more lawyer fees.
 

foltzie1

Member
Dec 12, 2013
2,771
0
365
Indianapolis
It doesn't typically work that way in the US. This is a major difference between our legal system and yours. The American Rule is that parties typically pay for their own legal fees unless either (1) a statute (law) specifically provides otherwise or (2) the suit was premised in bad faith. While he may have been able to move for fees under the premise of bad faith, pro se parties, such as Romine, are given a lot more leeway when it comes to things such as this. Regardless, whether the suit was premised in bad faith or not, it's a moot point for the reason I explain below.

Here's a wiki article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...ey's_fees)
Exactly. It's right there in the filing; this is a joint submission by both parties. In Alabama this would have actually been styled as a "Joint Stipulation of Dismissal," but this is the exact same thing. Though filed by Romine, it was signed by both Romine and Jim's attorney, and almost certainly was drafted Jim's lawyer.

It states "the parties hereby stipulate and agree to the dismissal of all claims . . . with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees." Jim can't come back and sue Romine for his legal fees, because he's already agreed not to. In exchange, Romine is (1) dropping the suit (thus causing Jim to no longer incur legal fees) and (2) promising to actually think before filing DMCA takedown notices in the future (for whatever this is worth).

For anyone curious why it ended this way really read the above.

I assume Sterling isnt interested in trying to get weighed down in any mire and muck of trying to file counterclaims (I can't even imagine what they might be) or spend more time and money trying to argue for attorneys fees for that may have not been awarded since getting bad faith awards is hard.

Is it annoying that this ended without a judge saying "Romine is wrong", maybe, but Romine never had the law on his side.

This was always going to end in a dismissal of some sort be it via a settlement, or the judge saying that Romine had "failed to state a claim".

At the very least Jim gets a settlement that verbally spanks Romine that Romine then had to sign. So there is some fun to be had there.

Romine has killed his cash flow from Steam, which had been estimated to be worth a little more than you would think.

It might have been "fun" to see Romine or DH or whatever company actually bankrupted, but this settlement coupled with Romine and friends being tossed off Steam is close to a total loss for him.

Congrats Mr. Sterling.
 

Hylian7

Member
Mar 25, 2009
24,336
0
1,000
Congrats Jim. I look forward to the Jimquisition and Podquisition that will likely be in the pipeline for this.
 

ImaLemming

Member
May 9, 2015
177
0
0
I'm impressed Jim's lawyer was able to get Romine to sign any deal more favorable towards Jim than "Romine gets all the money he asked for AND rights to the Jimquisition AND Jim has to get Valve, who we all know Sterling secretly has ties to, to put DigiHom games back on Steam"
 

Ondore

Member
May 20, 2009
4,783
0
0
And here it is.
http://www.thejimquisition.com/a-statement-regarding-romine-v-stantons-dismissal-with-prejudice/
After a year of lingering and a cavalcade of increasingly exasperating amendments, it is a distinct personal pleasure to finally be able to say that the lawsuit ”James Romine v. James Stanton" has been dismissed with prejudice following discussions between my lawyer Bradley Hartman and the plaintiff James Romine.

In 2016, Romine sued yours truly – better (and preferably) known as Jim Sterling – for over $10million, a sum that would rise to over $15million during the course of the year. The original charges were assault, libel, and slander. Romine alleged that my coverage of his game studio Digital Homicide inflicted not only severe emotional damage but irreparably harmed his company.

More at the link (if you can hit it).

Temporary mirror
 

Sv7Fooster

Neo Member
May 11, 2016
5
0
0
JFC Cloudflare. I think this is the third time Sterling's site has gone down when he's posted a piece. He's got to get a new host.
 

Lashley

Why does he wear the mask!?
Sep 11, 2013
26,716
9
570

Statement
 

foltzie1

Member
Dec 12, 2013
2,771
0
365
Indianapolis
For those curious about this resolution, I was not a direct part of the communication between Romine and my lawyer, but as I understand it, the agreement to drop the suit with prejudice was the result of Hartman’s enviable reasoning ability. The plaintiff agreed to drop his case after my lawyer explained exactly what would happen if this went to court and how we would respond.

Could any of the practicing attorney's posit what types of counterclaims Sterling might have been able to press? I'm not thinking of any and as others have pointed out, getting attorneys fees for a bad faith filing is hard on a first time pro-se litigant.
 

Primus

Member
Jan 13, 2015
1,602
1
0
More at the link (if you can hit it).

Temporary mirror

Thanks for the mirror, main site is burning wreckage right now.

Things to take away from this whole fiasco:

1) HIRE A GOD DAMN ATTORNEY. Seriously. Romine's lack of attorney and Jim's extremely competent attorney are the stars of this tragicomedy.

For those curious about this resolution, I was not a direct part of the communication between Romine and my lawyer, but as I understand it, the agreement to drop the suit with prejudice was the result of Hartman's enviable reasoning ability. The plaintiff agreed to drop his case after my lawyer explained exactly what would happen if this went to court and how we would respond.

2) Take the L, and try to be graceful about it.

3) We do have one thing to thank Romine for, and that's coining "Jim Fucking Sterling, Son". One shining moment in a sea of burning shit.

EDIT: Eagerly awaiting Jim's inevitable follow-up and Leonard French's video on the conclusion. I'd also like to say it's been a pleasure to be introduced to some of the LegalGAF folks via this whole imbroglio.

EDIT 2: Speaking of Leonard French...
 

Lamptramp

Member
Jun 10, 2013
692
0
0
Germany/UK
I've been following this, mouth agape since the very first "review the reviewer" response, and though it seems daft to say aloud I kinda feel like a load has been lifted off with this great news.

Jim if you poke your head in, (frankly you shouldn't bother, enjoy some relaxing family time) sincere congratulations old chap, I'm glad you got through it.

Thanks as well for the updates/opinions legal GAF, I can't say it been a pleasure following this, but it's been educational. It just this second occurred to me it was Phisheep and Tim Langdell first made me come to GAF back in the day, clearly Legal GAF is best GAF. Toodle pip all!
 

ImaLemming

Member
May 9, 2015
177
0
0
For those curious about this resolution, I was not a direct part of the communication between Romine and my lawyer, but as I understand it, the agreement to drop the suit with prejudice was the result of Hartman’s enviable reasoning ability. The plaintiff agreed to drop his case after my lawyer explained exactly what would happen if this went to court and how we would respond.

I'm curious as to what Hartman said to finally penetrate Romine's realityphobic skull, but I imagine it's confidential.
 

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
May 19, 2006
30,264
0
1,440
Could any of the practicing attorney's posit what types of counterclaims Sterling might have been able to press? I'm not thinking of any and as others have pointed out, getting attorneys fees for a bad faith filing is hard on a first time pro-se litigant.
Still may have been able to file a Rule 11 motion for sanctions in the forms of cost to defend. Difficult against pro se parties, but not insurmountable.

Not many claims I can think of which Jim could bring against Romine, but I'm not 100% familiar with the facts.
1) HIRE A GOD DAMN ATTORNEY.
It's not that easy. I can't imagine there would be a long line of attorneys waiting to represent Romine, and any attorney with even the slightest bit of competency who would have taken this case would have demanded an hourly contract with a retainer fee, rather than working on a contingency arrangement. This would have put Romine's cost to prosecute the lawsuit roughly on par with Jim's cost to defend it. Without knowing Romine's financial situation, this may not have been something he would have been able to do.
 

InsaneTiger

Member
Sep 28, 2013
6,698
0
425
Hiring an attorney is not always an easy thing. There are so many little chargea that can stack up. If you don't have the means it's tough.
 

TS-08

Member
Mar 27, 2012
3,359
0
0
Still may have been able to file a Rule 11 motion for sanctions in the forms of cost to defend. Difficult against pro se parties, but not insurmountable.

Not many claims I can think of which Jim could bring against Romine, but I'm not 100% familiar with the facts.

It's not that easy. I can't imagine there would be a long line of attorneys waiting to represent Romine, and any attorney with even the slightest bit of competency who would have taken this case would have demanded an hourly contract with a retainer fee, rather than working on a contingency arrangement. This would have put Romine's cost to prosecute the lawsuit roughly on par with Jim's cost to defend it. Without knowing Romine's financial situation, this may not have been something he would have been able to do.

Could he not assert claims for malicious prosecution or abuse of process in addition to a motion for sanctions? I'm not sure it would matter that he's pro se but I don't guess I know that with certainty.

Edit - although I guess technically, malicious prosecution is not a counterclaim since it has to be asserted after the underlying matter is resolved in your favor.
 

Stealth_Cobra

Member
Feb 25, 2013
1,044
86
520
Behind you !
Glad it's over...

Now he's ready to get sued by Nintendo for telling everyone it's okay to pirate their games in his latest video.

I mean , I like the guy and I find his videos funny, with often very interesting critiques of the game industry in general, but I do feel like he's "fishing for controversy" and that his constant slandering will eventually backfire on him. He kinda got lucky that Digital Homicide were a bunch of amateurs who love painting themselves in a corner... But when a big publishers bites, he'll probaly regret going to war.

I get that he doesn't like the fact companies are trying to take a youtubers ad revenu for using footages from their games... Although seeing him constantly gloat about abusing loopholes in the content ID system doesn't exactly make him seem like the "good guy" in this story. It's like a guy that gloats that he pirates games because he hates DRM... That doesn't really make you a "good" guy... And gloating about it in your videos certainly isn't the best idea imho...

He's abusing the system in place and gloating about it ,claiming he has every right to use any footage from anything and ignoring existing copyright laws. Granted, there are clauses about creating new content out of existing footage, but still ,you're using something you did not make yourself to generate traffic on your own account, so you're at least partially accountable and responsible if you upload content from other companies/users/etc.

Sterling seems to forget something about the game and studios he covers, it's their game, their IPs, their brands and their reputation, and they are "kinda" right in claiming that "borrowing" content and using it to generate views is akin to stealing content, in some regards.

If I take a movie trailer and use it to generate clicks but doing a "reaction video", I fully expect the movie company to take ownership and maybe file for a takedown... Seems logical to me, in a sense. Yes, I'm adding something, creating new context, but I'm still using their footage, their IP to generate clicks, so it seems natural to me to perhaps I should not be making all the money off these videos. Granted, there's something wrong with a system where all the money goes to the publisher and none goes to the youtuber, so I get his anger, but still, there are better ways to get the message across than "copyright deadlock" and gloating about it.

It doesn't help that Sterling often "borrows" footage mostly to shame developpers , then proceeds to basically slander the company for the whole duration of the episode. So you're using their footage AND basically telling the world your company is garbage, your games are garbage, your employees are bad and whatever you feel like saying sucks about your franchises, your corporate identity and so on. You're talking things they worked their ass off creating, then slandering them in the process, and you expect to be able to keep doing it week after week without pissing off anyone.

Granted, youtube personalities have a right to have opinions, but to me journalists should try to remain neutral, objective , unbiaised, to keep an open mind and defintively not to slander developpers like he often does. Granted, Sterling claims he's not a game journalist, he's not a "reviewer", arguments which he uses to justify his opinions... But in the end, I feel he often acts as a rather "toxic" individual, treating game companies as evil, power hungry corporations hell bent on sucking all fun out of videogames.

Still, he has nice boglins, so all is forgiven.
 

Vlodril

Member
Dec 20, 2008
2,917
42
1,065
Greece
www.youtube.com
Glad it's over...

Now he's ready to get sued by Nintendo for telling everyone it's okay to pirate their games in his latest video.

I mean , I like the guy and I find his videos funny, with often very interesting critiques of the game industry in general, but I do feel like he's "fishing for controversy" and that his constant slandering will eventually backfire on him. He kinda got lucky that Digital Homicide were a bunch of amateurs who love painting themselves in a corner... But when a big publishers bites, he'll probaly regret going to war.

I get that he doesn't like the fact companies are trying to take a youtubers ad revenu for using footages from their games... Although seeing him constantly gloat about abusing loopholes in the content ID system doesn't exactly make him seem like the "good guy" in this story. It's like a guy that gloats that he pirates games because he hates DRM... That doesn't really make you a "good" guy... And gloating about it in your videos certainly isn't the best idea imho...

He's abusing the system in place and gloating about it ,claiming he has every right to use any footage from anything and ignoring existing copyright laws. Granted, there are clauses about creating new content out of existing footage, but still ,you're using something you did not make yourself to generate traffic on your own account, so you're at least partially accountable and responsible if you upload content from other companies/users/etc.

Sterling seems to forget something about the game and studios he covers, it's their game, their IPs, their brands and their reputation, and they are "kinda" right in claiming that "borrowing" content and using it to generate views is akin to stealing content, in some regards.

If I take a movie trailer and use it to generate clicks but doing a "reaction video", I fully expect the movie company to take ownership and maybe file for a takedown... Seems logical to me, in a sense. Yes, I'm adding something, creating new context, but I'm still using their footage, their IP to generate clicks, so it seems natural to me to perhaps I should not be making all the money off these videos. Granted, there's something wrong with a system where all the money goes to the publisher and none goes to the youtuber, so I get his anger, but still, there are better ways to get the message across than "copyright deadlock" and gloating about it.

It doesn't help that Sterling often "borrows" footage mostly to shame developpers , then proceeds to basically slander the company for the whole duration of the episode. So you're using their footage AND basically telling the world your company is garbage, your games are garbage, your employees are bad and whatever you feel like saying sucks about your franchises, your corporate identity and so on. You're talking things they worked their ass off creating, then slandering them in the process, and you expect to be able to keep doing it week after week without pissing off anyone.

Granted, youtube personalities have a right to have opinions, but to me journalists should try to remain neutral, objective , unbiaised, to keep an open mind and defintively not to slander developpers like he often does. Granted, Sterling claims he's not a game journalist, he's not a "reviewer", arguments which he uses to justify his opinions... But in the end, I feel he often acts as a rather "toxic" individual, treating game companies as evil, power hungry corporations hell bent on sucking all fun out of videogames.

Still, he has nice boglins, so all is forgiven.

wtf am i reading..
 

Tubie

Member
Nov 12, 2013
9,258
0
405
Glad it's over...

Now he's ready to get sued by Nintendo for telling everyone it's okay to pirate their games in his latest video.

I mean , I like the guy and I find his videos funny, with often very interesting critiques of the game industry in general, but I do feel like he's "fishing for controversy" and that his constant slandering will eventually backfire on him. He kinda got lucky that Digital Homicide were a bunch of amateurs who love painting themselves in a corner... But when a big publishers bites, he'll probaly regret going to war.

I get that he doesn't like the fact companies are trying to take a youtubers ad revenu for using footages from their games... Although seeing him constantly gloat about abusing loopholes in the content ID system doesn't exactly make him seem like the "good guy" in this story. It's like a guy that gloats that he pirates games because he hates DRM... That doesn't really make you a "good" guy... And gloating about it in your videos certainly isn't the best idea imho...

He's abusing the system in place and gloating about it ,claiming he has every right to use any footage from anything and ignoring existing copyright laws. Granted, there are clauses about creating new content out of existing footage, but still ,you're using something you did not make yourself to generate traffic on your own account, so you're at least partially accountable and responsible if you upload content from other companies/users/etc.

Sterling seems to forget something about the game and studios he covers, it's their game, their IPs, their brands and their reputation, and they are "kinda" right in claiming that "borrowing" content and using it to generate views is akin to stealing content, in some regards.

If I take a movie trailer and use it to generate clicks but doing a "reaction video", I fully expect the movie company to take ownership and maybe file for a takedown... Seems logical to me, in a sense. Yes, I'm adding something, creating new context, but I'm still using their footage, their IP to generate clicks, so it seems natural to me to perhaps I should not be making all the money off these videos. Granted, there's something wrong with a system where all the money goes to the publisher and none goes to the youtuber, so I get his anger, but still, there are better ways to get the message across than "copyright deadlock" and gloating about it.

It doesn't help that Sterling often "borrows" footage mostly to shame developpers , then proceeds to basically slander the company for the whole duration of the episode. So you're using their footage AND basically telling the world your company is garbage, your games are garbage, your employees are bad and whatever you feel like saying sucks about your franchises, your corporate identity and so on. You're talking things they worked their ass off creating, then slandering them in the process, and you expect to be able to keep doing it week after week without pissing off anyone.

Granted, youtube personalities have a right to have opinions, but to me journalists should try to remain neutral, objective , unbiaised, to keep an open mind and defintively not to slander developpers like he often does. Granted, Sterling claims he's not a game journalist, he's not a "reviewer", arguments which he uses to justify his opinions... But in the end, I feel he often acts as a rather "toxic" individual, treating game companies as evil, power hungry corporations hell bent on sucking all fun out of videogames.

Still, he has nice boglins, so all is forgiven.

He doesn't monetize his videos, so he's not directly making any money off that footage.

The reason he deadlocks videos is because publishers try to actually monetize his videos (like forcing ads on videos that didn't have any before) and keep all the money made from that, when the video was never intended to do that, not even for himself.
 

TeamLeftMatch

Member
Sep 30, 2016
1,184
2
0
London
For me the biggest takeaway is that his real name is not Jim Fucking Sterling son. Feel like everything I knew was a lie.
That and anyone can be a child, no matter the age
Remember, Digital Homicide devs have children and IIR are in their 30s
and take things too far without any thought about the consequences. I'm glad that the case is over and Digital Homicide are gone with the only thing to remember them by is the name they gave to Jim
 
Apr 7, 2011
10,148
1,031
1,150
I respect that it ended the way that it did. Jim has been really offended by these guys at DH and just ending it and not pursuing damages is a good call.
 
Congratulations to Jim fucking Sterling!

It's a well deserved win though it's a pity he wasn't raked across the coals by a judge and forced to pay your legal cost.

Can't help but wonder if the twat might try something again yet....doesn't strike me as the type to give up.
 

NewDust

Member
Nov 18, 2013
2,823
0
500
It's not that easy. I can't imagine there would be a long line of attorneys waiting to represent Romine, and any attorney with even the slightest bit of competency who would have taken this case would have demanded an hourly contract with a retainer fee, rather than working on a contingency arrangement. This would have put Romine's cost to prosecute the lawsuit roughly on par with Jim's cost to defend it. Without knowing Romine's financial situation, this may not have been something he would have been able to do.

Perhaps that was Romine's plan all along... Fuck over Jim Sterling for as long as possible, than pullout as late as possible.

He doesn't monetize his videos, so he's not directly making any money off that footage.

The reason he deadlocks videos is because publishers try to actually monetize his videos (like forcing ads on videos that didn't have any before) and keep all the money made from that, when the video was never intended to do that, not even for himself.

He does, just not the Jimquisition.
 
Feb 22, 2014
13,692
0
520
It's not that easy. I can't imagine there would be a long line of attorneys waiting to represent Romine, and any attorney with even the slightest bit of competency who would have taken this case would have demanded an hourly contract with a retainer fee, rather than working on a contingency arrangement. This would have put Romine's cost to prosecute the lawsuit roughly on par with Jim's cost to defend it. Without knowing Romine's financial situation, this may not have been something he would have been able to do.

I mean the lesson there is maybe Romine didn't have a case in the first place. Wild thought I know.

Didn't he claim he had some family member who was a lawyer helping him or something?