No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
If DMCA is going to continue to be 'guilty until proven innocent', it really needs to come with some really fucking severe penalties for false claims. Using automated claims services should not be an excuse.
IIRC, they open themselves up to legal punishment if they push a false DMCA claim after the target files a counterclaim, which (along with the bad press) is probably why they dropped it.
Sadly this is about as good a system as we'll likely ever see - at least there's some hope for falsely struck projects (even if many don't counterclaim as it opens them up to legal action). I have a feeling any replacement system would be far more stacked in the industry's favor.
The problem is that all of this happened outside the law. Calling it a "DMCA takedown" is misleading, because it's not making use of the DMCA's mechanisms. There actually are hefty penalties for false DMCA claims, but only if you file them with a court.
I assume, Valve may be liable as well, for distributing copyrighted material (especially after they've been notified of it). At the very least, YouTube also has a system like that, where they allow claimants to bully creators with no repercussions.
Basically, Valve, YouTube et al need their own copyright takedown system to be preferrable for companies, so that those use it instead of filing an official DMCA claim.
Of course, the root cause of the problem is still the DMCA.
If DMCA is going to continue to be 'guilty until proven innocent', it really needs to come with some really fucking severe penalties for false claims. Using automated claims services should not be an excuse.
IIRC, they open themselves up to legal punishment if they push a false DMCA claim after the target files a counterclaim, which (along with the bad press) is probably why they dropped it.
Sadly this is about as good a system as we'll likely ever see - at least there's some hope for falsely struck projects (even if many don't counterclaim as it opens them up to legal action). I have a feeling any replacement system would be far more stacked in the industry's favor.
The problem is that all of this happened outside the law. Calling it a "DMCA takedown" is misleading, because it's not making use of the DMCA's mechanisms. There actually are hefty penalties for false DMCA claims, but only if you file them with a court.
I assume, Valve may be liable as well, for distributing copyrighted material (especially after they've been notified of it). At the very least, YouTube also has a system like that, where they allow claimants to bully creators with no repercussions.
Basically, Valve, YouTube et al need their own copyright takedown system to be preferrable for companies, so that those use it instead of filing an official DMCA claim.
Of course, the root cause of the problem is still the DMCA.