Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dudeface wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Of course they're going to make incorrect or mistaken claims, they're evidently trying to get better at this process and as long as a human is sat at the wheel there will be a mistake. All GW can do it mitigate the risk and impact of the mistake.

I think it's a matter of perspective. To you, they're making incorrect or mistaken claims. To me, they're trying to see just how far they can push.

Good, so you're saying you believe that GW is incapable of making a mistake or incorrectly understanding legal terms, boundaries and conditions. Therefore are 100% competent and capable as a legal team, as no action is being made without intent?

Because that's a lofty claim if so, I mean they really showed people who was boss making 1 guy get a 2 day late payment on 1 video.

No, I'm not saying that, as I didn't, but thank you for putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying that this specific instance, when someone intently (and manually) issued a copyright claim was not done by mistake, basically because it's a multiple-step process where you need to include information, timestamps and the like. If it was done "by mistake" as part of a whole other list of copyright claims... well, that tells you everything you need, right there.

It might be "a mistake" having issued it, but it was not done "by mistake".

Also, try to be a bit less reductionist. Me saying "I think they're trying to see just how far they can push" in no way or form includes the sentence "GW is incapable of making a mistake or incorrectly understanding legal terms".

EDIT: As a last point... GW is a corporation, not some guy. And corporations, by their main motivations, steer towards the evil of the spectrum. Given their motivations are basically "earn as much as absolutely possible, spend as little as absolutely possible, trample any obstacle on the way, do anything for the bottomline and the shareholders"... anything you allow them to do, they'll do.

You can make a mistake in hindsight, re: having a lack of judgement. At the time of issuing the strike, the person doing so judged they had good reason to do so, in hindsight that judgement was a mistake.

What you are arguing is that it was an accident, not one person on here believes it was an accident.

How hard is this for people on here to understand. I want to meet all you perfect people who never make mistakes, and have never realised in hindsight that your actions you thought were totally fine actually were not....

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You can make a mistake in hindsight, re: having a lack of judgement. At the time of issuing the strike, the person doing so judged they had good reason to do so, in hindsight that judgement was a mistake.

What you are arguing is that it was an accident, not one person on here believes it was an accident.

How hard is this for people on here to understand. I want to meet all you perfect people who never make mistakes, and have never realised in hindsight that your actions you thought were totally fine actually were not....

People =/= corps. When a corporation "makes a mistake" of that kind, you need to take a look at the motivations that led to that mistake. Usually, the motivation is greed or control. That's why I think they're trying to see how far they can push. Because it's a corporation, and they do that. All the time. To everything.

No matter how many multicolored flags they put on their logos at Pride month.

Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me. And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.

 Gert wrote:
Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me. And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.

You're speaking of automation. This was issued manually. It's not a difficult process, but it's a multi-step one, that you can't really do unless you're doing exactly that, and it was done using GW's accounts.

Do you really believe someone from GW, with GW's account, issued a copyright claim unprompted? Because that's the thing. If someone issued a copyright claim, that's what they were supposed to be doing.

Or, once again, issuing it might have been a mistake, but it was not done by mistake.

 Albertorius wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You can make a mistake in hindsight, re: having a lack of judgement. At the time of issuing the strike, the person doing so judged they had good reason to do so, in hindsight that judgement was a mistake.

What you are arguing is that it was an accident, not one person on here believes it was an accident.

How hard is this for people on here to understand. I want to meet all you perfect people who never make mistakes, and have never realised in hindsight that your actions you thought were totally fine actually were not....

People =/= corps. When a corporation "makes a mistake" of that kind, you need to take a look at the motivations that led to that mistake. Usually, the motivation is greed or control. That's why I think they're trying to see how far they can push. Because it's a corporation, and they do that. All the time. To everything.

No matter how many multicolored flags they put on their logos at Pride month.

So, if you take your car to a national garage, some apprentice installs the wrong part, they then replace it 2 days later at the hands of an experienced mechanic at no cost. That to you is the garage as a company ensuring they intentionally fit the wrong a part to your car?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me. And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.

You're speaking of automation. This was issued manually. It's not a difficult process, but it's a multi-step one, that you can't really do unless you're doing exactly that, and it was done using GW's accounts.

Do you really believe someone from GW, with GW's account, issued a copyright claim unprompted? Because that's the thing. If someone issued a copyright claim, that's what they were supposed to be doing.

Or, once again, issuing it might have been a mistake, but it was not done by mistake.

Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.

 Albertorius wrote:
You're speaking of automation. This was issued manually.

The individual may have pressed the button on purpose but it was in error and therefore a mistake.

Do you really believe someone from GW, with GW's account, issued a copyright claim unprompted?

It's my job to sell food and drink, I don't need to be prompted into doing it because it's what I am paid to do.

Because that's the thing. If someone issued a copyright claim, that's what they were supposed to be doing.

Yes, because it will be their job to issue such claims. We know that Infringment Assistants don't need legal background or knowledge so as I said earlier, it's very likely that they act as sniffer dogs and leave the resolution up to the actual lawyers. As the saying goes, it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.

Or, once again, issuing it might have been a mistake, but it was not done by mistake.

So... still a mistake then.

As the saying goes, it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.

We are talking about someone's money here. It's not pouring someone coke instead of coke diet. And again, you have no proof it was a mistake. It could've been, but it also could've been a real claim that GW decided is not worth the stink it kicked up.

Dudeface wrote:
So, if you take your car to a national garage, some apprentice installs the wrong part, they then replace it 2 days later at the hands of an experienced mechanic at no cost. That to you is the garage as a company ensuring they intentionally fit the wrong a part to your car?

Bad example, as you're talking about something done by your request, not unprompted. The garage is only touching things because you asked them to. Provided they're not using cheaper parts than stipulated (or used ones) and that they're not doing anything you did not ask them to do, there would be no malice involved, just a transaction.

This is not the case here, as it's a company acting in accordance with their own internal guidelines, and in accordance with their internal principles.

Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.

But that person can't make the mistake unless the corporation has ordered them to do it (in this case, issuing copyright claims).

Plus, the only data we have about it being "an error" is just those two words. We know it was an error, not what kind of error.

Also, ultimately, a corporation is responsible for the mistakes of its workers.

 Albertorius wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
So, if you take your car to a national garage, some apprentice installs the wrong part, they then replace it 2 days later at the hands of an experienced mechanic at no cost. That to you is the garage as a company ensuring they intentionally fit the wrong a part to your car?

Bad example, as you're talking about something done by your request, not unprompted. The garage is only touching things because you asked them to. Provided they're not using cheaper parts than stipulated (or used ones) and that they're not doing anything you did not ask them to do, there would be no malice involved, just a transaction.

This is not the case here, as it's a company acting in accordance with their own internal guidelines, and in accordance with their internal principles.

Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.

But that person can't make the mistake unless the corporation has ordered them to do it (in this case, issuing copyright claims).

Plus, the only data we have about it being "an error" is just those two words. We know it was an error, not what kind of error.

Also, ultimately, a corporation is responsible for the mistakes of its workers.

Yes the company is responsible for the mistakes of its workers. Yes that worker intentionally hit submit on that video, but it doesn't stop it being a mistake.

There is no malicious intent in an honest mistake as long as they apologise and right the error. Which they have.

Honestly I think you just want to assume ignorance of the human element of this process in an attempt to just maintain "corporation bad".

 Gert wrote:
The individual may have pressed the button on purpose but it was in error and therefore a mistake.

It was "an error". We do not know what kind of error, nor from whom. What we do know, is that the process can't be done by error. So whoever did it, they were supposed to be doing it.

It's my job to sell food and drink, I don't need to be prompted into doing it because it's what I am paid to do.

Only here there are no customers, as they can't choose to refuse until after "having been served".

Yes, because it will be their job to issue such claims. We know that Infringment Assistants don't need legal background or knowledge so as I said earlier, it's very likely that they act as sniffer dogs and leave the resolution up to the actual lawyers. As the saying goes, it's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.

Well, it's easier for them. If that's what they're doing, it was no mistake. It was wilfully done.

Or, once again, issuing it might have been a mistake, but it was not done by mistake.

So... still a mistake then.

See above. I don't feel there is any point in discussing this further, so... good day.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Yes the company is responsible for the mistakes of its workers. Yes that worker intentionally hit submit on that video, but it doesn't stop it being a mistake.

There is no malicious intent in an honest mistake as long as they apologise and right the error. Which they have.

Honestly I think you just want to assume ignorance of the human element of this process in an attempt to just maintain "corporation bad".

Thing is, this was not a mistake. Issuing it was (because there was no basis), but the process of issuing it was done wilfully.

The malicious intent is on their policy. And in seeing how far they can push before having to state that it was "an error".

Cronch wrote:
We are talking about someone's money here. It's not pouring someone coke instead of coke diet.

I never said I approved, I just said that's likely how the system is run considering the requirements on the job application.

And again, you have no proof it was a mistake. It could've been, but it also could've been a real claim that GW decided is not worth the stink it kicked up.

I'm still waiting for literally anyone who thinks it was some kind of scheme to provide any sort of actual evidence. The onus isn't on me to prove it was a mistake, it's on you to prove it wasn't.

Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?

Albertorius 800701 11212701 104f4949b9d6b447304ca8b62636c1c4.png

wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Yes the company is responsible for the mistakes of its workers. Yes that worker intentionally hit submit on that video, but it doesn't stop it being a mistake.

There is no malicious intent in an honest mistake as long as they apologise and right the error. Which they have.

Honestly I think you just want to assume ignorance of the human element of this process in an attempt to just maintain "corporation bad".

Thing is, this was not a mistake. Issuing it was (because there was no basis), but the process of issuing it was done wilfully.

The malicious intent is on their policy. And in seeing how far they can push before having to state that it was "an error".

So here you're stating that enforcing their IP is malicious. Of course it was submitted willingly, it again doesn't prevent it being a mistake for it to have happened.

The pushing the boundaries is an entirely unfounded statement and based on your own subjective feelings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MaxT wrote:
Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?

Nope, they don't make mistakes apparently, an error is a cover up term for "oops, you caught us knowingly trying to incorrectly demonitise a singular youtube video".

Dudeface wrote:

Albertorius 800701 11212701 104f4949b9d6b447304ca8b62636c1c4.png

wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
Yes the company is responsible for the mistakes of its workers. Yes that worker intentionally hit submit on that video, but it doesn't stop it being a mistake.

There is no malicious intent in an honest mistake as long as they apologise and right the error. Which they have.

Honestly I think you just want to assume ignorance of the human element of this process in an attempt to just maintain "corporation bad".

Thing is, this was not a mistake. Issuing it was (because there was no basis), but the process of issuing it was done wilfully.

The malicious intent is on their policy. And in seeing how far they can push before having to state that it was "an error".

So here you're stating that enforcing their IP is malicious. Of course it was submitted willingly, it again doesn't prevent it being a mistake for it to have happened.

The pushing the boundaries is an entirely unfounded statement and based on your own subjective feelings.

Not subjective or unfounded at all quite the contrary, if you care to look at GW past on this, its a GW typical behaviour.

@ Albertorius I agree its pointless to debate when people are not willing to listen or try to understand the past and present context. Debating in a little bubble of their own makes no sense.

Dudeface wrote:
So here you're stating that enforcing their IP is malicious. Of course it was submitted willingly, it again doesn't prevent it being a mistake for it to have happened.

The pushing the boundaries is an entirely unfounded statement and based on your own subjective feelings.

Nope, they don't make mistakes apparently, an error is a cover up term for "oops, you caught us knowingly trying to incorrectly demonitise a singular youtube video".

Seeing as all you seem to want to do is twist my words for them to say whatever you want to... bye.

 Albertorius wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
So here you're stating that enforcing their IP is malicious. Of course it was submitted willingly, it again doesn't prevent it being a mistake for it to have happened.

The pushing the boundaries is an entirely unfounded statement and based on your own subjective feelings.

Nope, they don't make mistakes apparently, an error is a cover up term for "oops, you caught us knowingly trying to incorrectly demonitise a singular youtube video".

Seeing as all you seem to want to do is twist my words for them to say whatever you want to... bye.

I've twisted nothing there sadly, but agree this conversation is done.

So the multimillion professional company that exactly knows what they are doing after 40 years in the business is defended because they are "new" and don't know how this works hence mistakes were made

because it cannot be true that something I said is going to happen (YT strike taking down videos no matter what and this is going to be used to remove unwanted content during the release window) cannot be true

this was no mistake, they knew what they were doing and knew what was going to happen

question is just, did they do it to make a statement, to proof a point or just to point to finger to others so that they stay in line?

or was it just the IP guy who thought "lets try how easy this really is"

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


GW DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE END, THIS IS PROGRESS, TAKE THE PROGRESS.

Threatening the livelihood of a person who did nothing wrong by wrongfully submitting a false copyright claim isn't "progress." This attitude just floors me - GW does something out of the blue that's completely unjustified resulting in someone losing their income, then backs off after the person involved challenges their action. This isn't "progress," any more than it's "progress" if you are wrongfully arrested because of total incompetence by the police if you are released when they discover their mistake. Rectifying your unilateral mistake that hurts another person is the bare minimum expected of anyone, it doesn't show "progress."

The rock-bottom expectations some people have for GW is just incredible - now GW is actually being praised for filing false copyright claims because it shows "progress" that they abandon their false claims when called on them by the victim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.

1. You have zero actual evidence for this claim. None. It is completely made up out of thin air.

2. It's also simply wrong as a matter of law. A corporation can't act except through the actions of its employees. By definition, GW made the mistake, if its employee made the mistake while acting as GW's agent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me.

Legally incorrect. As long as you're acting in your role as an employee, it's the company's mistake too. A company can't act except through its agents.

 Gert wrote:

And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.

If this is actually how GW's process works - that they submit copyright claims before having them reviewed by a lawyer, and then rescind those after the fact that the lawyers determine are bogus - that would be grossly negligent, and blatantly in violation of the copyright laws. Submitting one of these claims requires attesting under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith basis for filing the claim and that you have reviewed the claim to make sure there isn't a fair use/dealing defense. What you are describing - filing first, reviewing second - would literally be a criminal act by GW.

MaxT wrote:
Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?

Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.

Even the most ardent defender can't say that didn't happen, so instead we get treated to the spectacle of being told that Games Workshop may have done it - but they really didn't mean to do it.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


GW DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE END, THIS IS PROGRESS, TAKE THE PROGRESS.

Threatening the livelihood of a person who did nothing wrong by wrongfully submitting a false copyright claim isn't "progress." This attitude just floors me - GW does something out of the blue that's completely unjustified resulting in someone losing their income, then backs off after the person involved challenges their action. This isn't "progress," any more than it's "progress" if you are wrongfully arrested because of total incompetence by the police if you are released when they discover their mistake. Rectifying your unilateral mistake that hurts another person is the bare minimum expected of anyone, it doesn't show "progress."

The rock-bottom expectations some people have for GW is just incredible - now GW is actually being praised for filing false copyright claims because it shows "progress" that they abandon their false claims when called on them by the victim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.

1. You have zero actual evidence for this claim. None. It is completely made up out of thin air.

2. It's also simply wrong as a matter of law. A corporation can't act except through the actions of its employees. By definition, GW made the mistake, if its employee made the mistake while acting as GW's agent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me.

Legally incorrect. As long as you're acting in your role as an employee, it's the company's mistake too. A company can't act except through its agents.

 Gert wrote:

And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.

If this is actually how GW's process works - that they submit copyright claims before having them reviewed by a lawyer, and then rescind those after the fact that the lawyers determine are bogus - that would be grossly negligent, and blatantly in violation of the copyright laws. Submitting one of these claims requires attesting under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith basis for filing the claim and that you have reviewed the claim to make sure there isn't a fair use/dealing defense. What you are describing - filing first, reviewing second - would literally be a criminal act by GW.

Haha I was just about to post that. We now have people defending GW by saying they are committing violations with either criminal or civil penalties.

Honestly I am a bit surprised at some of the vehemence here. We have people who, it seems to me, are not too far off from buying bathwater from GW as long as its labeled "Isha's Tears".

 phandaal wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?

Even the most ardent defender can't say that didn't happen, so instead we get treated to the spectacle of being told that Games Workshop may have done it - but they really didn't mean to do it.

Some people are going even further than that, and claiming that GW didn't do it at all, it was just some rogue employee whose action cannot be imparted to the company. Never mind that there is zero evidence of that, and that it's legally incorrect...

 phandaal wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?

Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.

That's kind of a terrible point, to be honest.
What 'people' said GW wouldn't do doesn't matter and isn't binding on GW. It'd be somewhat meaningful if GW said they wouldn't do it, but as is, so what?
People (especially on the internet) make up the craziest things, and this isn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel.

Voss wrote:

 phandaal wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?

Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.

That's kind of a terrible point, to be honest.
What 'people' said GW wouldn't do doesn't matter and isn't binding on GW. It'd be somewhat meaningful if GW said they wouldn't do it, but as is, so what?
People (especially on the internet) make up the craziest things, and this isn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel.

What people in this thread said GW wouldn't do but turns out actually did, is absolutely relevant to this discussion when evaluating the credibility of those same people.

caladancid wrote:


Haha I was just about to post that. We now have people defending GW by saying they are committing violations with either criminal or civil penalties.

Honestly I am a bit surprised at some of the vehemence here. We have people who, it seems to me, are not too far off from buying bathwater from GW as long as its labeled "Isha's Tears".

In their defense, they don't know that their latest excuse for Games Workshop would be illegal in practice. They just know that under no circumstances can they ever admit that GW may be engaged in exactly the kind of activity that rational people said they would engage in.

Sometimes when you're working long hours on the corporate defense force, you make these kinds of mistakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 phandaal wrote:

MaxT wrote:
Are we now debating the difference between an error and a mistake?

Apparently so. The main point is that Games Workshop did something that people swore up and down they wouldn't do, which is incontrovertible.

That's kind of a terrible point, to be honest.
What 'people' said GW wouldn't do doesn't matter and isn't binding on GW. It'd be somewhat meaningful if GW said they wouldn't do it, but as is, so what?
People (especially on the internet) make up the craziest things, and this isn't anywhere near the bottom of the barrel.

Actually it's a great point, because the point is to show that some people were right, and other people who fought them tooth and nail over the original claim were wrong.

Unless you just woke up from a coma and missed the whole thing about how Games Workshop definitely would never be planning to take more copyright action, in which case it's understandable that you would be missing some context.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:


GW DID THE RIGHT THING IN THE END, THIS IS PROGRESS, TAKE THE PROGRESS.

Threatening the livelihood of a person who did nothing wrong by wrongfully submitting a false copyright claim isn't "progress." This attitude just floors me - GW does something out of the blue that's completely unjustified resulting in someone losing their income, then backs off after the person involved challenges their action. This isn't "progress," any more than it's "progress" if you are wrongfully arrested because of total incompetence by the police if you are released when they discover their mistake. Rectifying your unilateral mistake that hurts another person is the bare minimum expected of anyone, it doesn't show "progress."

The rock-bottom expectations some people have for GW is just incredible - now GW is actually being praised for filing false copyright claims because it shows "progress" that they abandon their false claims when called on them by the victim.

They were being praised for swiftly correcting the situation, not filing a form.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

Yes, they issued it by mistake. They perhaps considered the evidence incorrectly, they were misinformed what they should claim for etc. But 1 person, not a corporation, made the mistake.

1. You have zero actual evidence for this claim. None. It is completely made up out of thin air.

2. It's also simply wrong as a matter of law. A corporation can't act except through the actions of its employees. By definition, GW made the mistake, if its employee made the mistake while acting as GW's agent.

There's also 0 evidence that they're "pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with" or "trying to abuse the reporting mechanism" given it was resolved in a timely manner and with no damages as far as anyone is aware.

It's law in the context that the employer is liable for the error in the context of an action taken whilst under their employment and carrying out their duties. The employees mistake is GW's mistake, but I'm fairly sure it was also GW as a whole responding to Guy and removing the application against his video.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Corporations are made up of people though, and people make mistakes.
If I accidentally charge someone for the wrong drink, it's not the company that made the mistake it's me.

Legally incorrect. As long as you're acting in your role as an employee, it's the company's mistake too. A company can't act except through its agents.

This also is only partially true, staff can be pressured or coerced to act unethically at which point the staff member isn't at fault at all and the company is entirely to blame (in so far as it would become an internal matter), whilst the actions of the employees in the act of their duties do represent the company however.

 Gert wrote:

And it has been pointed out that the YT claim system is not a difficult process and that anyone can do it at any time. If it's the individual's job to look for potential infringement then that's what they'll be doing, and it's very likely a case where the individual goes "I found a thing and flagged it, now it's up to the lawyers to resolve it". The lawyers then looked at it, said no, and rescinded the claim.
Honestly, most of these complaints aren't about GW but capitlist practices in general.

If this is actually how GW's process works - that they submit copyright claims before having them reviewed by a lawyer, and then rescind those after the fact that the lawyers determine are bogus - that would be grossly negligent, and blatantly in violation of the copyright laws. Submitting one of these claims requires attesting under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith basis for filing the claim and that you have reviewed the claim to make sure there isn't a fair use/dealing defense. What you are describing - filing first, reviewing second - would literally be a criminal act by GW.

Again, common for law practices in the UK to file many forms and begin many actions based on the paperwork of an assistant. In most instances these do not need a qualified lawyer/solicitor to sign them off, but often are done this way as to charge for higher legal fees. It's quite possible their superior never looked over the form, authorised it or even looked it over properly if they did sign it.

To draw a line under my involvement in this thread completely:
- They put a copyright claim against the monetisation of a video.
- This was rescinded 2 days later.
- No financial harm was done to our knowledge.
- No other videos have been impacted to our knowledge.
- There is no evidence if this was a genuine mistake, or if it was a targeted malicious attack.
- In my opinion if they had intended malicious harm or thought a genuine case had been raised, they would have seen it through hence is an honest mistake.

Gert makes some valid points. While an individual certainly does work *for* and *on behalf of* a company, if someone makes a mistake, it doesn't mean that their mistake is part of some vast corporate conspiracy against you.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

To draw a line under my involvement in this thread completely:
- They put a copyright claim against the monetisation of a video.
- This was rescinded 2 days later.
- No financial harm was done to our knowledge.
- No other videos have been impacted to our knowledge.
- There is no evidence if this was a genuine mistake, or if it was a targeted malicious attack.
- In my opinion if they had intended malicious harm or thought a genuine case had been raised, they would have seen it through hence is an honest mistake.

Agreed.

Submitting a claim that has no legal basis cannot be an "honest mistake." It is by definition at the very least negligent. That doesn't mean it was necessarily malicious - it could have simply been because GW has no understanding of IP law and is totally incompetent organizationally; we know from previous experience that this is not beyond the realm of possibility - but either way it's not an "honest mistake." An "honest mistake" is a mistake that reasonable people can make acting reasonably. Reasonable people don't submit false IP claims when basic due diligence would have shown the claim had no merit.

 MJRyder wrote:
Gert makes some valid points. While an individual certainly does work *for* and *on behalf of* a company, if someone makes a mistake, it doesn't mean that their mistake is part of some vast corporate conspiracy against you.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

To draw a line under my involvement in this thread completely:
- They put a copyright claim against the monetisation of a video.
- This was rescinded 2 days later.
- No financial harm was done to our knowledge.
- No other videos have been impacted to our knowledge.
- There is no evidence if this was a genuine mistake, or if it was a targeted malicious attack.
- In my opinion if they had intended malicious harm or thought a genuine case had been raised, they would have seen it through hence is an honest mistake.

Agreed.

That is sort of the point of this entire thread though. GW is hiring, and presumably has already hired, people to make these sorts of decisions. THAT is a choice GW made. The choices those people then make- are absolutely imputable to the main corporation.

There is no James Workshop copyright striking, or making any of the other decisions GW is being criticized for. It is all individuals. Claiming that GW is not responsible for people they hire doing the EXACT job they were hired for, is yet another way for a subset of our community to avoid holding GW accountable.

 MJRyder wrote:
Gert makes some valid points. While an individual certainly does work *for* and *on behalf of* a company, if someone makes a mistake, it doesn't mean that their mistake is part of some vast corporate conspiracy against you.

This is a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said that. Please don't waste everyone's time with this sort of thing.

Meanwhile, what Gert said is legally inaccurate - a mistake by an employee is a mistake by the company. That's how the law works. We have no evidence this was the result of the act of a single employee, mind you. But even if it was, GW is still responsible for the error, unless the employee was acting outside the scope of their employment, which has a very high bar legally. Gert also suggested that the situation here was explainable by GW engaging in behavior that would violate both criminal and civil laws, namely submitting claims first under penalty of perjury and only checking them for legal sufficiency after submission. Not even I think that's plausible, but if GW really did do business that way, it would be even more worthy of our criticism.