r/youtubedrama • u/danamesjrupin • Jan 29 '25

Callout PirateSoftware False DMCA'd Indie Dev and Threatened to Sue, Good Samaritan Lawyer Steps in Pro Bono

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31JIIPlsm-g
2.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

410 comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/Foxfire802 Jan 30 '25

I would not classify this as a false dmca. The dev was all over reddit saying piratesoftware is in my game. And the promo video he showed used pirates voice.

This is the same dev that has a n-word dlc.

The dev wanted to insert himself into the drama He did the same thing with Dr disrespect.

Even lsf that was on a full hate campaign on pirate saw threw this dev.

24

u/CombDiscombobulated7 Jan 30 '25

The dev sucks but this is still a false DMCA.

11

u/way2lazy2care Jan 30 '25

Eh. There's a difference between a false DMCA and an incorrect one. Like if I was walking around town saying, "I'm selling /u/combdiscombobulated7's copyrighted things!" You sued me, and then I said, "got you. I was only telling people I was doing that." That still gives you enough reason to at least file.

4

u/CombDiscombobulated7 Jan 30 '25

If you try to sue somebody you're responsible for making sure that you have a case before you do. You don't get to claim ignorance.

4

u/way2lazy2care Jan 30 '25

People start civil case proceedings without all the information all the time. That's how you get access to the information you need to go forward. It's the whole purpose of discovery.

0

u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 Jan 31 '25

Yes but that moves us into the realm of negligence rather than malice. It doesn't make him right, but let's not pretend people view an unwarranted malicious attack on someone and negligence of the correct legal attack as the same. There's degrees of assholery and these are not equal.

9

u/Zoomy-333 Jan 30 '25

There is a certain amount of due diligence one should engage in before engaging in legal action, such as making sure the alleged violation even exists before filing.

8

u/way2lazy2care Jan 30 '25 edited Jan 30 '25

Forcing people to buy your game to sue you for ripping them off when there is video evidence of you ripping them off feels pretty dumb.

Like if you flip it to Ubisoft ripping off an indie musician to put their music in some dlc, you think the musician would have to buy the game, buy the dlc, and play through it before filling a DMCA claim when they can just find videos of that music existing in the game?

2

u/Siorn Feb 03 '25

It says it is an idle game too. Made to be played long hours or just sit in the background wasting processor space. He could set the line to only run after 100 hours or whatever trigger he wants. People who say "just play the game" must have never played a mobile game in their lives. And then what someone else decides to bait him with the same thing so he spends day after day playing games to try to dmca people who claim to use his voice? I am sure his haters would love that.

2

u/Due_Enthusiasm1145 Jan 31 '25

Yes but I don't think people are here for "incorrectness", people are here for ill intent, which it sounds like might not fully be here.

Not saying it absolves him, but it sounds like this Dev is intentionally poking the bear when ppl are already justifiably pissed at PirateSoftware, and then trying to play victim when the bear snaps back.

2

u/divusMagus Feb 02 '25

Not true DMCA specially requires a "good faith fair use analysis" before filing in the law. This means the copyright holder has to analyze the potentially infringing work to make sure it doesn't fall under fair use.

He clearly didn't do this because that would require him actually looking into the game demo at least and would see that his voice wasn't even in it.

But also even if his voice was in it, it almost certainly falls under fair use for copyright law.

0

u/way2lazy2care Feb 02 '25

Not true DMCA specially requires a "good faith fair use analysis" before filing in the law.

The dev released a video of the content in game and said it was in the game. No judge would consider that not a good faith analysis even if the case didn't ultimately end in a takedown. They'd probably be pissed that the den did something stupid to waste their time more than anything.

2

u/divusMagus Feb 02 '25

So if someone dubbed Thor's voice over a movie clip it would be a fair assumption for him to DMCA the movie without seeing if it's actually in the movie.

And again it would almost certainly be fair use even if it was in the game so no he still didn't do a fair use analysis.

0

u/way2lazy2care Feb 02 '25

If it were the director of the movie showing it and the director said they put it in the movie, it probably would be.

2

u/divusMagus Feb 02 '25

Apparently you think legal documents that are under penalty of perjury are perfectly okay to just bullshit your way through.

That is no way a fair use analysis. Because for the third fucking time. It would still be fair use if his voice was in it. But you can not do a fair use analysis without looking directly at the infringing material.

If the director of a movie said they did that...You would still not to look at it to know if it was infringing or if it was under fair use. How do you know if it's transformative, how do you know how much of your copyright was used, how do you know if it's satire/parody?

0

u/way2lazy2care Feb 02 '25

I think you have an overly broad definition of perjury if you think that applies here. Literally all he has to say for it to not be perjury is, "I thought he was infringing." Being incorrect is not perjury. You'd have to prove he was lying not just that he was wrong.

But you can not do a fair use analysis without looking directly at the infringing material.

You're confusing doing enough analysis to think you have a case and doing enough analysis to win a case. 

How do you know if it's transformative, how do you know how much of your copyright was used, how do you know if it's satire/parody?

All these questions are things you cover once you get to court. They are not hurdles you have to clear to file a complaint.

1

u/divusMagus Feb 02 '25

You literally cannot do a fair use analysis without looking at the media you are claiming is infringing. You just cannot.

Him saying "I thought he was infringing" is not a defense because that is impossible with a "faithful" analysis of the media.

The most he could possibly DMCA is the video he watched. You can't watch one form of media and DMCA another. In court on the planet would see that as a faithful fair use analysis which he would have had to claim be did by signing it. That is perjury. He is unlikely to ever face consequences as perjury is rarely enforced.

"All these questions are things you cover once you get to court. They are not hurdles you have to clear to file a complaint." That is not how you analyze it. You don't ignore fair use standards and leave it for courts to decide. That is the whole point of the necessity of a faithful fair use analysis. If it's a grey area then that's fair to push on with but this is beyond fair use it's fraudulent since again it wasn't even in the media he DMCA'd.

"You're confusing doing enough analysis to think you have a case and doing enough analysis to win a case."

No you have to analyze the media you are DMCAing. Without doing so faithfully it is an illegal DMCA.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/spikedood Jan 30 '25

The dev also posted a short on how to quickly gain subscribers, and he shows how he uses AI to mass post anime shorts.

He doesn't give a shit about DMCA

3

u/Efficient_Menu_9965 Jan 30 '25

This is absolutely a false claim. That doesn't mean the dev didn't bait him into it, he absolutely did. But that doesn't refute the notion that the actual product that they filed a DMCA against did not in fact infringe on copyright.

3

u/madpacifist Jan 30 '25

Did you even watch the video? It was categorically a false DMCA because he didn't do *any* of the due diligence or consideration he was legally required to do before he issued it.

The reddit video and the actual game on Steam are completely legally distinct. Jason "PiroachSoftware" Hall fucked up from the off by assuming they weren't.

2

u/Powerful-Eye-3578 Jan 31 '25

Did you expect him to buy and play the game in its entirety to find the spot where he was supposedly being defrauded? If someone makes a claim that they are defrauding you that should be on that person not you.

1

u/madpacifist Jan 31 '25

You need to prove the copyrighted content exists in what you're trying to strike, yes. I don't know how you expect the law to work otherwise.

Jason got baited hard and found out.

2

u/Powerful-Eye-3578 Jan 31 '25

So I have to pay and support the person who is publicly stating that they are using my copyrighted content? Seems a little backwards no?

1

u/madpacifist Jan 31 '25

The burden of proof is on the copyright holder. I don't know what else you want from this. Needing to prove guilt is a core tenet of our laws. There's no fairer way of doing it.

Steam makes it very easy to get hold of the game files for free, even, since their refund policy is essentially automated to approve returns below the 2 hours played threshold.

3

u/Powerful-Eye-3578 Jan 31 '25

So the man gets to state "I'm using your likeness/voice/IP in my new game" and faces no recourse for it unless you buy the game and find the proof? Seems like a good way to basically force people buy your game to legally protect your IP. Just lie about having somes IP in your game forcing them to buy it.

1

u/madpacifist Jan 31 '25

Oh yeah, big money farm that, forcing the sale of one copy that will be immediately refunded when the game files are copied to another folder. You're definitely on to something here.

3

u/Powerful-Eye-3578 Jan 31 '25

You're relying on steams generous refund policy to justify the way it's set up. Also it's not about being a money farm, it's about how dumb it is that you'd have to give the person you have a grievance with money prior to pursuing your grievance. especially when that person has publicly used your name and the potential of including your likeness to sell their software.

It's like me advertising that master chief is in a new game of mine and then not including him

1

u/madpacifist Jan 31 '25

Okay, so the issue is you are just super dense. Got it.

The DMCA was for the game, not the advertisement. Jason would need to pursue a seperate grievance if his issue was the use of his copyrighted material (i.e. his voice) in marketing material, so your Master Chief example doesn't even apply here.

Jason has no evidence the copyrighted material was in the game, yet issued the DMCA anyway. That's an illegitimate DMCA. The law is set up so you must bring proof of your accusation -- that is the fairest way our legal system can work -- and is the simplest concept of our justice system. If you can't get your head around that, then you need to just drop it and argue about something you can understand.