Valve will most likely dismiss all the cases once they looked into it.
That is the safeguard they have.

Valve are not allowed by law to just ignore DMCA takedowns or claims.

all DMCA claims have to be taken serious from the start until it have been reviewed.

Originally posted by Citizen:

We will absolutely take the blame on Valve for not safeguarding from this problem.

Blame the law, in the US if someone files a DMCA claim a business is required to immediately remove the content while the courts determine the validity. If the claim was filed falsely the person making the false report is held liable.

Valve has no say in the removal of the content and they are required by law to remove it, even if it later turns out its false.

Originally posted by Truth:

Blame the law, in the US if someone files a DMCA claim a business is required to immediately remove the content while the courts determine the validity. If the claim was filed falsely the person making the false report is held liable.

Valve has no say in the removal of the content and they are required by law to remove it, even if it later turns out its false.

Thats probably all there is to say regarding the topic.

Can we move on now?

Originally posted by Citizen:

There is widespread fraud going around the workshop where trolls have made claims on a huge wide net of addons (Specifically Gmod, Rimworld, and others)

Which left undealt with will cause major problems.
This issue is infuriating if not shut down immediately and will significantly impact the community in a LOUD negative way.

We will absolutely take the blame on Valve for not safeguarding from this problem.

You can hold Valve liable all you want, but they are bound by law to act in the best interests of IP owners when a claim is made. Otherwise, Valve could be held liable for illegally distributing someone else's property without consent. This is the way DMCA is structured.

It's a process that needs to be allowed to complete. The DMCA really needs to be rewritten to adapt to today's technology, but I don't think today's administration has the focus to even think about working on it.

Originally posted by rawWwRrr:

Originally posted by Citizen:

There is widespread fraud going around the workshop where trolls have made claims on a huge wide net of addons (Specifically Gmod, Rimworld, and others)

Which left undealt with will cause major problems.
This issue is infuriating if not shut down immediately and will significantly impact the community in a LOUD negative way.

We will absolutely take the blame on Valve for not safeguarding from this problem.

You can hold Valve liable all you want, but they are bound by law to act in the best interests of IP owners when a claim is made. Otherwise, Valve could be held liable for illegally distributing someone else's property without consent. This is the way DMCA is structured.

It's a process that needs to be allowed to complete. The DMCA really needs to be rewritten to adapt to today's technology, but I don't think today's administration has the focus to even think about working on it.

It's already on the agenda (or has been from time to time), depending on where you live. But too many interest groups are working against it.

Besides, it's a lucrative business, the Internet as we know it is also being destroyed in passing. Innovation is prevented, knowledge is withheld and much more. According to legal experts, anonymity should be abolished anyway. That is exactly where we are heading at the moment.

Everything should start by separating politics from the private sector. Then move on to lobbying. Would be the first step. And DMCA/copyright mechanics should not revised. It should be completely abolished. Quite simply.

Why? First of all, the mechanics are not that old and often only the big players benefit from them. Even if someone has rights to something or patents, there is always the possibility that it will be stomped into the ground by some corporation.

Originally posted by ペンギン:

And DMCA/copyright mechanics should not revised. It should be completely abolished

So...if you create a successful Thing which sells Millions you would be OK if the Copyright does not exist anymore and everyone else is free to earn money with your creation while you wont see anything out of those?

Originally posted by Wolfpig:

Originally posted by ペンギン:

And DMCA/copyright mechanics should not revised. It should be completely abolished

So...if you create a successful Thing which sells Millions you would be OK if the Copyright does not exist anymore and everyone else is free to earn money with your creation while you wont see anything out of those?

"Modern" Copyright is an invention that is also not old. Moreover, there is no way in the world to prevent someone, somewhere having the same idea, inventing or building something that is similar or perhaps almost identical to one's own things. Nor can it prevent “theft”. Because it is human nature. As well as replication and further development.

Earning money, profit? Even without copyright. Yes, there used to be.

There were also times when millions and millions of DMCA complaints weren't sent to search engines. There were also times when users weren't constantly barraged with advertising. There were also times when not all data was stolen and exploited without cause.

And guess what? Money was still made. And not badly.

Originally posted by ペンギン:

Originally posted by Wolfpig:

So...if you create a successful Thing which sells Millions you would be OK if the Copyright does not exist anymore and everyone else is free to earn money with your creation while you wont see anything out of those?

"Modern" Copyright is an invention that is also not old. Moreover, there is no way in the world to prevent someone, somewhere having the same idea, inventing or building something that is similar or perhaps almost identical to one's own things. Nor can it prevent “theft”. Because it is human nature. As well as replication and further development.

Earning money, profit? Even without copyright. Yes, there used to be.

Without Copyright, I could take what you created and then sell it for a cheaper price than you do. Since I wouldn't have the costs involved I could sell it significantly less than you do and make a profit while you are not able to sell it or make a profit from it.

Sounds like a great idea.

Copyright happened because the world changed in technology that showed a need for copyright.

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

Without Copyright, I could take what you created and then sell it for a cheaper price than you do.

This is also possible with copyright. Therefore, no argument.

Originally posted by ペンギン:

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

Without Copyright, I could take what you created and then sell it for a cheaper price than you do.

That is not an argument, because with copyright you can do it too

That is false. Someone else that isn't Valve couldn't take Valve's Half Life 2 game and legally sell it. The fact that you think that I could take Half Life 2 and decide to sell it on the internet and not get sued for it means you have no idea how Copyright law actually works.

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

Originally posted by ペンギン:

That is not an argument, because with copyright you can do it too

That is false. Someone else that isn't Valve couldn't take Valve's Half Life 2 game and legally sell it. The fact that you think that I could take Half Life 2 and decide to sell it on the internet and not get sued for it means you have no idea how Copyright law actually works.

Of course you can, but you're confusing a few things here that don't change the point.

It goes without saying that there are other things involved such as legislative, executive and judicial aspects. But they must first have the knowledge, reach and authorization. I think you know that too.

Especially in your example, you are only assuming the internet (or open platforms).

Originally posted by ペンギン:

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

That is false. Someone else that isn't Valve couldn't take Valve's Half Life 2 game and legally sell it. The fact that you think that I could take Half Life 2 and decide to sell it on the internet and not get sued for it means you have no idea how Copyright law actually works.

Of course you can, but you're confusing a few things here that don't change the point.

It goes without saying that there are other things involved such as legislative, executive and judicial aspects. But they must first have the knowledge, reach and authorization. I think you know that too.

Especially in your example, you are only assuming the internet (or open platforms).

You literally said a bunch of words without saying anything at all.

Absolute fact remains, I cannot copy Half Life 2 and then sell it without getting sued by Valve for doing it.

You really are showing you have no idea how copyright laws even work at all because you literally believe it is legal for copyrighted work to be copied by other people and distributed and sold without permission of the copyright holder.

Originally posted by ペンギン:

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

Without Copyright, I could take what you created and then sell it for a cheaper price than you do.

This is also possible with copyright. Therefore, no argument.

It's possible, but what happens is then the other party files a lawsuit for you doing so, proves they have copyright of the material, and by law you are then required to pay the other party all profits made, then pay damages and fines on top of that.

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

Originally posted by ペンギン:

Of course you can, but you're confusing a few things here that don't change the point.

It goes without saying that there are other things involved such as legislative, executive and judicial aspects. But they must first have the knowledge, reach and authorization. I think you know that too.

Especially in your example, you are only assuming the internet (or open platforms).

You literally said a bunch of words without saying anything at all.

Absolute fact remains, I cannot copy Half Life 2 and then sell it without getting sued by Valve for doing it.

You really are showing you have no idea how copyright laws even work at all because you literally believe it is legal for copyrighted work to be copied by other people and distributed and sold without permission of the copyright holder.

What does that have to do with the statement that it is not possible? Nothing. As i said, the consequences are another matter.

It seems that you have not understood the text and the core message at all or have not read it in full, because your comments are completely irrelevant.

Please also read what unprovable insinuations are all about, because you seem to be quick with it.

Originally posted by Truth:

Originally posted by ペンギン:

This is also possible with copyright. Therefore, no argument.

It's possible, but what happens is then the other party files a lawsuit for you doing so, proves they have copyright of the material, and by law you are then required to pay the other party all profits made, then pay damages and fines on top of that.

Correct, but it does not prevent the possibility that someone can do something. That was the point.

And WolfEisberg didn't understand the statements because he refers to the legislation and ignores everything else

Originally posted by ペンギン:

Originally posted by WolfEisberg:

You literally said a bunch of words without saying anything at all.

Absolute fact remains, I cannot copy Half Life 2 and then sell it without getting sued by Valve for doing it.

You really are showing you have no idea how copyright laws even work at all because you literally believe it is legal for copyrighted work to be copied by other people and distributed and sold without permission of the copyright holder.

What does that have to do with the statement that it is not possible? Nothing. As i said, the consequences are another matter.

You clearly show that the text and the core statement were not understood or fully read at all because your points are totally irrelevant.

Please also read what unprovable insinuations are all about, because you seem to be quick with it.

You are still saying nothing at all.

The consequences is literally why copyright works, the consequences is literally why my original argument is a valid argument against what you said.

Again, all you are showing is you do not know how copyright law actually works, you are literally showing you believe it is legal to copy someone else's work and distribute it and resell it without the copyright holders permission.

Not at any single time have you said anything that can be seen as an argument against what I said, you said a bunch of words that actually don't mean anything at all. The very fact that you didn't even try to reword it to make it more understandable shows that you probably also know what you said was a bunch of words that don't mean anything.

You still have not given a single argument against what I said.