
We DMCA-ed our own game because it got hijacked by publisher - Reedx
https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/ai80zd/we_dmcaed_our_own_game_last_week_because_it_got/
======
Reedx
Here's the game in question:
[https://store.steampowered.com/app/505740/Eximius_Seize_the_...](https://store.steampowered.com/app/505740/Eximius_Seize_the_Frontline/)

And the announcement on Steam:
[https://steamcommunity.com/games/505740/announcements/detail...](https://steamcommunity.com/games/505740/announcements/detail/1699446873491336874)

------
pkilgore
Hey y'all. (At least in USA) ask for a provision awarding attorneys fees and
costs to prevailing party in the event of a dispute over major contracts.

Disputes happen less frequently, go faster, settle more often, and are easier
to fund if necessary.

Suspect parties that won't sign it (or at least discuss their reasons).

------
jedberg
Steam/Valve has a great PR opportunity here. They could pay out all the money
to the indie developer and then use their legal might to sue the publisher to
recover the stolen funds.

~~~
FireBeyond
That would come perilously close to tortious interference. They would have no
standing to do so, any more than withholding your funds because you didn't pay
your rent.

~~~
jedberg
Their standing would come from the fact that they had to refund the indie
developer and therefore are now in need of funds to cover that expense
incurred because of the publishers actions.

~~~
FireBeyond
Any competent attorney (and realize that not for one moment do I have any
sympathy for the publisher, who sounds like a complete garbage person) would
turn around and say "You had no obligation to do so, and your desire to do so
for PR purposes or otherwise in no way creates an obligation for me to
reimburse you".

And legally, they'd be entirely right.

------
jiqiren
I’m super confused on what a publisher does in this case. seems all they did
was release on steam? Can’t any dev do the same? What was the purpose of the
publisher? (Did I miss something?)

~~~
simcop2387
Usually the publisher acts like a movie producer, in theory, they get all the
marketing and distribution setup and usually also help either raise or provide
initial funding for the venture. In this case it seems like they didn't do
much at all.

------
benj111
This seems like the wrong tool for the job.

They seem to have good reasons for doing what they did. So I don't fault them,
but this should be a contract dispute/fraud.

~~~
klodolph
Isn’t it the contract which gives the publisher rights to publish the game? If
the publisher hasn’t executed their side of the contract, wouldn’t that mean
that they don’t have rights to the game? DMCA sounds like an appropriate tool,
then.

From what I understand, the way a breached contract gets handled varies a lot
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I’m no expert.

~~~
benj111
The publisher is UK based, as far as I'm aware contract law is somewhat
similar in the US.

The DMCA isn't against the publisher as I understand, its against the sites
actually selling the game.

~~~
klodolph
> The DMCA isn't against the publisher as I understand, its against the sites
> actually selling the game.

Well, yes, that's how DMCA takedown notices work. If Lex Luthor posts my video
on YouTube, I don't send the DMCA takedown notice to Lex Luthor, I send the
DMCA takedown notice to YouTube. Lex Luthor has no responsibility to accept
DMCA takedown notices, and there's no way to send them to him.

The sequence is (1) publisher breaches contract (2) developer voids contract
in response (3) publisher no longer has right to distribute game (4) DMCA
takedown notice. This makes sense to me, but again, I'm not a legal expert and
I'm willing to entertain arguments. I feel like the only thing in question
here is whether the contract was voided properly, and whether it could be
voided in the first place.

~~~
benj111
My point is, is that the publisher isn't involved in the prices at all, which
as they are the wrong doer suggests to me that this is indeed the wrong tool.

Its like Superman going after Lex Luther's office supplier, rather than
destroying his underground lair.

~~~
klodolph
I think you may misunderstand what a DMCA takedown notice is, or how they are
used.

You send DMCA takedown notices to _innocent parties,_ that's how they work,
that's how they're designed to work, that's the only way they work at all. If
you want to send something to a guilty party then you send a lawsuit instead.

You can't send a DMCA takedown notice to Lex Luthor's office supplier, because
the office supplier doesn't claim DMCA safe harbor. YouTube does, Steam does,
so you can send DMCA takedown notices to Steam and YouTube. You can't send
DMCA takedown notices to Lex Luthor, his office supplier, or the publisher at
fault here.

In effect, the DMCA takedown notice is just a way of telling YouTube, "Lex
Luthor does not have the rights to this video." This is not _going after
YouTube_ in any meaningful way. This is exactly what the DMCA is designed to
do... prevent YouTube or Steam from being targets of lawsuits. Because Steam
accepts DMCA takedown notices, they are protected from certain lawsuits for
copyright infringment. DMCA takedown is a process where you tell Steam about
third-party copyright infringement, and they remove the content and this
clears Steam of liability.

When Lex Luthor posts my video on YouTube, I can do two things: I can send a
DMCA to YouTube and I can sue Lex Luthor. Suing Lex Luthor is expensive, so I
start with the DMCA takedown notice to YouTube.

~~~
benj111
Ok then its like Superman sending DMCA takedown notices to Youtube over Lex
Luther's unauthorised use of Superman's S. Rather than destroying the space
laser that's about to destroy the earth. :P

~~~
klodolph
No, Superman's S would be covered by trademark. Sending DMCA takedown notices
in response to trademark violations may expose you to liability under DMCA
section 512(f).

It seems like you have an objection to the DMCA, but the story about space
lasers is a bit hard to understand. I'm not sure what your complaint is. The
reason I chose "Lex Luthor" is because choosing a name makes it easier to
understand hypothetical scenarios (instead of using them/they everywhere, or
"the infringing party"), and because he took forty cakes, and that's as many
as four tens.

~~~
benj111
My point is that you should be going after the actual problem, rather then
messing round with the periphery. The DMCA is designed to combat a diffuse
mass of people that you can't really target directly. The publisher like the
gigantic space laser is one large target. Target it directly.

To torture another metaphor, this may only be one starfighter against a star
destroyer, in that case, if you don't have an ion canon, kamikazing the shield
generators is an option, but not your first choice.

Don't ask me what the DMCA is in that metaphor :P

~~~
setr
in the DMCA case, you cease their profit-making pipelines, so that when you go
for the actual problem, the defenders have less reason to defend (and thus,
less incentive to throw more money into the defense). Theres a big difference
in defending something that brings in 100k/yr, versus something that’s been
DMCA’d everywhere relevant, and can’t be sold (is there any reason left to
continue defending, unless you expect to win & get sales rights back?)

For any weaker party, targetting the problem itself is too expensive to start
with, especially if the defendant is the only one currently making money off
the product (the accuser only has external funds to work with, no matter how
valuable the product is/was, while the defender has both product value and
external funds; DMCA can remove one of those revenue streams)

------
ezoe
Well, the right step outside of legal battle would be updating the game to say
that the publisher doesn't pay up.

