3 ms·
It's very unlikely that anything criminal has happened here, so government is irrelevant. I'm not even sure we're seeing any malevolence, just rank incompetence
by oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
It's very unlikely that anything criminal has happened here, so government is irrelevant. I'm not even sure we're seeing any malevolence, just rank incompetence.
- runevault 2y agoNot Criminal but invalid DMCA takedowns do open you up to lawsuits. I'm curious if both sides (aka the registrar and Funko) are liable or only Funko.
- masklinn 2y ago> invalid DMCA takedowns do open you up to lawsuits Invalid takedowns don’t open you up to anything. The only risk to takedowns is misrepresenting the purported owner but that’s not the case here and the risk would be from Funko not Itch. Much of the reason for DMCA abuse is that beyond the notice being assumed legitimate there is basically no risk to the complaining party until they dispute a counter-notification. Not that this is relevant in this case, as it was not a DMCA takedown. A takedown notice would have been addressed to Itch.
- soulofmischief 2y agoNegligence at scale is malevolence.
- zo1 2y agoMaybe not "criminal", sure. But even us thinking "oh it's a civil matter, not criminal one" is something conjured up by the lawyers in conjunction with government. It's such a convenient excuse, basically making it so that you as the injured party need to prove something at your own expense - expense that is directly funneled to the lawyer class. At the very least what happened here is lying in a commercial context. Arguably something that should be illegal, and sometimes is illegal under the banner of "fraud". Again, the definition of fraud is not obvious (despite them arguing it is super explicit in the laws) and we have to rely on the lawyer priesthood to determine what the "sacred texts" say about it. Maybe even rolling some conjured up lawyer-dice and seeing what the Oracle at the Court says about it after they convene a little "ritual" known as a court meeting or deposition.