Steam reactivity and transparency regarding DMCA disputes

[greenbone]

I am referring to the DMCA take down of a lovely game by developer 3DIVISION: https://steamcommunity.com/games/784150/announcements/detail/3647388792201529685
The take down is in my opinion extreme and not justified, it was initiated by a frustrated player, because his play-through guide was used to improve the game. But not to be specific, my question here, is why Steam does not communicate and be a little transparent in such cases? Because at the end it looks like either they are unresponsive and bureaucratic to the end, or worse that they support such immature claims. As year long customer this frustrates me coming from Steam that I felt more human than other storefronts!

[Crazy Tiger]

DMCA claims are between the person initiating the DMCA claim and the defendant. Steam legally has to comply with a takedown request.

They don't communicate about it because it's not anyone elses business and not their place to do so.

Originally posted by greenbone:

As year long customer this frustrates me coming from Steam that I felt more human than other storefronts!

You should start manageing your expectations. It's just a storefront like the others and being a "year long customer" doesn't make you special in any way.

[greenbone]

I stopped managing my expectations as a new year resolution after years of being empty and depressed. Expectations are part of life and so is the sentiment of deception or justice, or joy and sadness. I now accept them all and feel alive!

[greenbone]

Originally posted by Zero, Dark Knight:

Steam illegally took down a game from its owner because a guy who made a guide says he owns it ?

Wow.

It's not illegal, they have to do it, no choice, and if Crazy Tiger is right, the dispute does not even concern them. It's just so sad what happened :-( Have a great time everyone!

[Cathulhu]

Steam did not illegally take down the game. In fact it would have been illegal to keep it up.
Steam loses money in this too by not being able to sell the game.

Valve has to comply with the rules and regulations of a DMCA takedown request. Until it is resolved in one capacity or another, the game can not be sold.

[WhiteKnight]

One of the dumbest DMCA i ever seen. Valve better compensate for monetary loss the developer is going through.

[BloodShed]

Originally posted by WhiteKnight:

One of the dumbest DMCA i ever seen. Valve better compensate for monetary loss the developer is going through.

Why not the guy behind false DMCA?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by WhiteKnight:

One of the dumbest DMCA i ever seen. Valve better compensate for monetary loss the developer is going through.

That's on the shoulders of the person filing the DMCA if it is shown to be false. Valve is responding in accordance to the law. They are not and should not(just like any company) be held financially responsible for losses incurred from the takedown because they are required to do it.

[Brian9824]

It's pretty simple, they have to comply with the request, and if turns out to be false the game developer can sue the person in court for damages. Steam doesn't have any way to know who is telling the truth in that scenario, hence why they have to comply with the request until the matter can be legally resolved.

Just like if someone files a false police report its not the police's fault, its the person who made the false report who faces legal consequences

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by brian9824:

It's pretty simple, they have to comply with the request, and if turns out to be false the game developer can sue the person in court for damages. Steam doesn't have any way to know who is telling the truth in that scenario, hence why they have to comply with the request until the matter can be legally resolved.

While I understand there is a good reason this isn't the case, I do wish there was a bit of a higher bar for evidence it is stolen content outside of a relatively simple form that is filled out.

While that form is technically a legal document, we rarely see(or at least hear about) those whole file false DMCAs getting any punishment. I honestly think that there should not be an option to 'back out' once the initial DMCA is filed. This would keep people from filing because the know the content will be removed at least temporarily.

[WhiteKnight]

Originally posted by BloodShed:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight:

One of the dumbest DMCA i ever seen. Valve better compensate for monetary loss the developer is going through.

Why not the guy behind false DMCA?

Him & Valve. Since Valve is the one who decided not to investigate the matter but instead de listed the game.

[Satoru]

Originally posted by SlowMango:

While I understand there is a good reason this isn't the case, I do wish there was a bit of a higher bar for evidence it is stolen content outside of a relatively simple form that is filled out.

That's unfortunately not how the DMCA works and if you wish to maintain your safe harbor provision you must act on DMCA claims regardless of merit

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by WhiteKnight:

Originally posted by BloodShed:

Why not the guy behind false DMCA?

Him & Valve. Since Valve is the one who decided not to investigate the matter but instead de listed the game.

They are legally required to de-list the game. Just like YouTube when a video gets DMCA claimed.

Valve is also losing money while the game is de-listed. They aren't a legal firm and have no legal authority to do any investigation for the claim because the form the person filing is required to fill out is a legally binding document. If they lied on it, that is on them, not Valve.

[cinedine]

Originally posted by WhiteKnight:

One of the dumbest DMCA i ever seen. Valve better compensate for monetary loss the developer is going through.

If a content hoster receives a DMCA claim, they MUST take down the questionable content within 24 hours. Else they will lose their Safe Harbour status and from then on can be made liable themselves for all content hosted. Meaning you can sue Valve for copyright infringement directly instead of "just" issuing a DMCA complain.

All content BTW includes UGC. So all the copyright infringing avatars, artworks, guides and even forum posts. All. of. them.

[( ( < < <🤖> > > ) )]

Can you DMCA without copyright?
Answer: No. The DMCA notice and takedown process must only be used to remove copyright infringements. In order to send a DMCA takedown notice, you must either be the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by cinedine:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight:

One of the dumbest DMCA i ever seen. Valve better compensate for monetary loss the developer is going through.

If a content hoster receives a DMCA claim, they MUST take down the questionable content within 24 hours. Else they will lose their Safe Harbour status and from then on can be made responsible themselves for all content hosted. Meaning you can sue Valve for copyright infringement directly instead of "just" issuing a DMCA complain.

This is partially true. There is not hard time limit from when the notice is file to when the content needs to be removed. As explained here[www.law.cornell.edu] in the procedure for DMCA;

Originally posted by Cornell Law:

Information Location Tools.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—

(1)
(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.

There are cases of companies take over a week to remove the content and still being in accordance with the law.