Happy day to ya, Jim Fucking Sterling, Son. Sleep the sleep of justice deserved, you've earned it.
EDIT: All day and all night at the House of Sterling.
EDIT: All day and all night at the House of Sterling.
I have a feeling this was the real goal, just to waste Jim Sterling's time and make him pay out of pocket for it.
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!
I think it was a typo, but you are correct.
A fag is a cigarette here.
"I'm going out for a quick fag"
I think it was a typo, but you are correct.
A fag is a cigarette here.
"I'm going out for a quick fag"
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.
It is straight out mentioned in the court ruling that is showed in the SidAlpha video: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
with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
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.
Well this sure took a stupidly long time.
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.
He can't.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.
No.Could Jim pursue reimbursement of legal costs through a civil lawsuit?
He can't.I feel like it was implied he would when Jim said this at the end of one of his recent Jimquisitions.
No.Will he? Can't he file a counter suit to make the plaintiff pay for for the legal fees he caused?
Doesn't matter, he can't.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.
He can't.Gonna sue Romine back.
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.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
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 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.
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.
Nice. I guess now Jim could sue Nintendo about its interpretation of fair use.
It's finally over!
LINK
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).
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.
And to think, all it cost them was the dissolution of their company, the delisting of all their games on Steam, and a reputation that makes Konami look like CD Projekt Red.
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 Hartmans 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.
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.
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 Hartmans 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.
He probably just walked him through the info he had that would convince a jury to rule in favor of Jim.I'm curious as to what Hartman said to finally penetrate Romine's realityphobic skull, but I imagine it's confidential.
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.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.
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.1) HIRE A GOD DAMN ATTORNEY.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.