cheddargirl wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

{snipped for brevity}
Also, I'm sure there is a good reason for them not fighting the previous two times, and I hope I'll be able to find out. Thanks for reading!

In most cases, though, the person isn't sending a formal notice; rather they send an e-mail simply asking for the project/studio in question to be taken down. In those cases, the ST does reply back. For the most part, we're usually successful in talking with the person trying to explain to them about Scratch. Most usually back off once they find that the person of the project or studio is a young kid, but the “Animation Hall of Fame” studio was unfortunately one of the unsuccessful cases, where the museum owner was not budging one bit at all despite the ST's explanation.

For the Namco case, we were sent a legal takedown notice, which is a different and more complicated situation. These things are harder to deal with legally on our end, as such legal battles usually require the Scratcher to be involved in as well - and there probably aren't that many 8 to 16 year olds who are capable of getting a lawyer and sending a counter-notice.

In our DCMA info page, we note that any takedown notices may be sent to clearinghouse like chillingeffects.org (which makes the case public and transparent for everyone to see) and that any resulting costs where the takedown notice is faulty may result in the party sending the notice to pay up legal costs and fees. We also note the Fair Use Clause as well. These two things is what backs most legal notices off (most companies would prefer not to risk an expensive legal battle with a kid over the Fair Use clause), but Namco pushed the takedown notice anyway. We did post the notice on chillingeffects.org like we said we would in our DCMA info page, it made the case more public and spread to other sites with some e-mailing Namco over this. That's the best we could do on the state of the Namco case as it stands right now.

Aaahhh, but I can get a lawyer. My grandpa is one. If something like this happened again, I should be able to get a case. And as for Namco wasting money on a battle with a kid, they think that's the only clone they'll be able to stop. One by a kid. That is bullying. In fact, they should be able to sue them because of that. Classroom bullying isn't like that because they just want kids to apologise. Companies, on the other hand, can be sued.

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

Alberknyis wrote:

Notice: This post made made using information from the first three paragraphs of the main topic and nothing else. Just in case I missed anything important around here.

Some people don't like people copying their ideas.
Just like what's been going on in the Scratch community.
So stuff like this was going to happen eventually.
It's just two minor things. It's not like Scratch is being taken down. Don't worry about it.

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

I love cynical people.

I know Scratch isn't going down because of that, but bullying behavior from these companies upsets people and frightens them from being creative. Children learn by copying. They copy their favorite writer's styles. They copy their favorite games. They copy their parent's and older sibling's behavior. They copy their… well you get the idea. Children learn by copying until they can start doing things for themselves.

It is possible, but extrememly unlikely, if enough companies get silly like this, Scratch could be taken down. But it's unlikely.

Nah. Be realistic and look at it from the other point of view. “Being silly” isn't really what they're doing.

Alberknyis wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

Alberknyis wrote:

Notice: This post made made using information from the first three paragraphs of the main topic and nothing else. Just in case I missed anything important around here.

Some people don't like people copying their ideas.
Just like what's been going on in the Scratch community.
So stuff like this was going to happen eventually.
It's just two minor things. It's not like Scratch is being taken down. Don't worry about it.

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

I love cynical people.

I know Scratch isn't going down because of that, but bullying behavior from these companies upsets people and frightens them from being creative. Children learn by copying. They copy their favorite writer's styles. They copy their favorite games. They copy their parent's and older sibling's behavior. They copy their… well you get the idea. Children learn by copying until they can start doing things for themselves.

It is possible, but extrememly unlikely, if enough companies get silly like this, Scratch could be taken down. But it's unlikely.

Nah. Be realistic and look at it from the other point of view. “Being silly” isn't really what they're doing.

What do you mean?

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Zro716 wrote:

I don't think the ST can afford a lawyer

Zro, I love how all of your posts are so cynical and that you don't care about offending the ST at all.

cheddargirl wrote:

In our DCMA info page, we note that any takedown notices may be sent to clearinghouse like chillingeffects.org (which makes the case public and transparent for everyone to see) and that any resulting costs where the takedown notice is faulty may result in the party sending the notice to pay up legal costs and fees. We also note the Fair Use Clause as well. These two things is what backs most legal notices off (most companies would prefer not to risk an expensive legal battle with a kid over the Fair Use clause), but Namco pushed the takedown notice anyway. We did post the notice on chillingeffects.org like we said we would in our DCMA info page, it made the case more public and spread to other sites with some e-mailing Namco over this. That's the best we could do on the state of the Namco case as it stands right now.

+1; very informative post. Why did Namco want to fight an expensive legal battle with a kid? I don't think they have the grounds to prove that a Scratch project made by a kid infringes their copyright, especially because of “educational use” under the Fair Use clause, but also because a Scratch project isn't similar to an actual game in any way. I mean sure, if someone steals their specific code, they can go sue them, but I think they have no right to complain about a Scratch port of pac-man. Pac-man is such a classic game at this point that everyone is making clones of it, so why doesn't Namco go fight legal battles with whoever programmed the pac-man clone for the TI-84 Plus C Silver Edition calculator, for instance? (That model happens to have a color screen that supports pac-man, that's why I mention it.) I just think that maybe Namco should relinquish their copyright at this point, seeing what pac-man has become.

They go and do that, because a kid is easier to beat than a company. It's very unjust.

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

{snipped for brevity}
Also, I'm sure there is a good reason for them not fighting the previous two times, and I hope I'll be able to find out. Thanks for reading!

In most cases, though, the person isn't sending a formal notice; rather they send an e-mail simply asking for the project/studio in question to be taken down. In those cases, the ST does reply back. For the most part, we're usually successful in talking with the person trying to explain to them about Scratch. Most usually back off once they find that the person of the project or studio is a young kid, but the “Animation Hall of Fame” studio was unfortunately one of the unsuccessful cases, where the museum owner was not budging one bit at all despite the ST's explanation.

For the Namco case, we were sent a legal takedown notice, which is a different and more complicated situation. These things are harder to deal with legally on our end, as such legal battles usually require the Scratcher to be involved in as well - and there probably aren't that many 8 to 16 year olds who are capable of getting a lawyer and sending a counter-notice.

In our DCMA info page, we note that any takedown notices may be sent to clearinghouse like chillingeffects.org (which makes the case public and transparent for everyone to see) and that any resulting costs where the takedown notice is faulty may result in the party sending the notice to pay up legal costs and fees. We also note the Fair Use Clause as well. These two things is what backs most legal notices off (most companies would prefer not to risk an expensive legal battle with a kid over the Fair Use clause), but Namco pushed the takedown notice anyway. We did post the notice on chillingeffects.org like we said we would in our DCMA info page, it made the case more public and spread to other sites with some e-mailing Namco over this. That's the best we could do on the state of the Namco case as it stands right now.

Aaahhh, but I can get a lawyer. My grandpa is one. If something like this happened again, I should be able to get a case. And as for Namco wasting money on a battle with a kid, they think that's the only clone they'll be able to stop. One by a kid. That is bullying. In fact, they should be able to sue them because of that. Classroom bullying isn't like that because they just want kids to apologise. Companies, on the other hand, can be sued.

It depends on the kid (or in this case, the kid's parent/guardian) to ask if they want to hire your grandpa.

cheddargirl wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

{snipped for brevity}
Also, I'm sure there is a good reason for them not fighting the previous two times, and I hope I'll be able to find out. Thanks for reading!

In most cases, though, the person isn't sending a formal notice; rather they send an e-mail simply asking for the project/studio in question to be taken down. In those cases, the ST does reply back. For the most part, we're usually successful in talking with the person trying to explain to them about Scratch. Most usually back off once they find that the person of the project or studio is a young kid, but the “Animation Hall of Fame” studio was unfortunately one of the unsuccessful cases, where the museum owner was not budging one bit at all despite the ST's explanation.

For the Namco case, we were sent a legal takedown notice, which is a different and more complicated situation. These things are harder to deal with legally on our end, as such legal battles usually require the Scratcher to be involved in as well - and there probably aren't that many 8 to 16 year olds who are capable of getting a lawyer and sending a counter-notice.

In our DCMA info page, we note that any takedown notices may be sent to clearinghouse like chillingeffects.org (which makes the case public and transparent for everyone to see) and that any resulting costs where the takedown notice is faulty may result in the party sending the notice to pay up legal costs and fees. We also note the Fair Use Clause as well. These two things is what backs most legal notices off (most companies would prefer not to risk an expensive legal battle with a kid over the Fair Use clause), but Namco pushed the takedown notice anyway. We did post the notice on chillingeffects.org like we said we would in our DCMA info page, it made the case more public and spread to other sites with some e-mailing Namco over this. That's the best we could do on the state of the Namco case as it stands right now.

Aaahhh, but I can get a lawyer. My grandpa is one. If something like this happened again, I should be able to get a case. And as for Namco wasting money on a battle with a kid, they think that's the only clone they'll be able to stop. One by a kid. That is bullying. In fact, they should be able to sue them because of that. Classroom bullying isn't like that because they just want kids to apologise. Companies, on the other hand, can be sued.

It depends on the kid (or in this case, the kid's parent/guardian) to ask if they want to hire your grandpa.

Ok! Unless it's me who they're targeting.

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

Alberknyis wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

LE SNIPP.

Nah. Be realistic and look at it from the other point of view. “Being silly” isn't really what they're doing.

What do you mean?

Which word don't you understand? They're having something copied from them. You know no one likes being copied. We're lucky more projects haven't been removed.

Alberknyis wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

Alberknyis wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

LE SNIPP.

Nah. Be realistic and look at it from the other point of view. “Being silly” isn't really what they're doing.

What do you mean?

Which word don't you understand? They're having something copied from them. You know no one likes being copied. We're lucky more projects haven't been removed.

Hmm, I see… Although some people do like people taking their work and doing new things with them, like me. Although maybe that's not the same as being copied.

cheddargirl wrote:

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

{snipped for brevity}
Also, I'm sure there is a good reason for them not fighting the previous two times, and I hope I'll be able to find out. Thanks for reading!

In most cases, though, the person isn't sending a formal notice; rather they send an e-mail simply asking for the project/studio in question to be taken down. In those cases, the ST does reply back. For the most part, we're usually successful in talking with the person trying to explain to them about Scratch. Most usually back off once they find that the person of the project or studio is a young kid, but the “Animation Hall of Fame” studio was unfortunately one of the unsuccessful cases, where the museum owner was not budging one bit at all despite the ST's explanation.

For the Namco case, we were sent a legal takedown notice, which is a different and more complicated situation. These things are harder to deal with legally on our end, as such legal battles usually require the Scratcher to be involved in as well - and there probably aren't that many 8 to 16 year olds who are capable of getting a lawyer and sending a counter-notice.

In our DCMA info page, we note that any takedown notices may be sent to clearinghouse like chillingeffects.org (which makes the case public and transparent for everyone to see) and that any resulting costs where the takedown notice is faulty may result in the party sending the notice to pay up legal costs and fees. We also note the Fair Use Clause as well. These two things is what backs most legal notices off (most companies would prefer not to risk an expensive legal battle with a kid over the Fair Use clause), but Namco pushed the takedown notice anyway. We did post the notice on chillingeffects.org like we said we would in our DCMA info page, it made the case more public and spread to other sites with some e-mailing Namco over this. That's the best we could do on the state of the Namco case as it stands right now.

Just a thought, if The Animation Hall of Fame was only sending emails, once you had explained all you could, if they were still refusing to listen you could've just refused point-blank to take down the studio. But I suppose they'd just of started sending DMCA letters if you'd done that.

Also, if a DMCA takedown letter is ridiculous, there has to be some way of stopping it without spending money on a lawyer. Counter-DMCA takedown letters can be sent through chillingeffects, which you use. I can't find how much they cost, but I imagine they would not be too expensive (correct me if I'm wrong). And I do have an example of a letter not by a lawyer (though it's not a very good one as the complaining site only half had the rights to the articles). When I was searching for a particular minecraft mod (I can't remember which one) with google search, there was a line at the bottom of the first page saying something like "One result has been removed from the search list due to a DMCA letter we were sent. You can read the letter here." The letter was from minecraftsix (a site that illegally (in most cases) redistributes minecraft content) complaining about another illegally redistributing minecraft site which was copying and pasting all their articles. The letter was not very formal, but the site was still removed from google results. What I mean by them only having half the rights to the articles is because with almost all content they posted they didn't have the right to repost at all. However, (unless they copied and pasted the content author's descriptions) if the description was original people probably couldn't just copy and paste it. If google had known that the site illegally distributes minecraft content, what would they have done? Probably they would have removed both sites from their results.

The post above me is not a nercopost.
Anyways, back to topic.
No support because the ST can't afford lawyers and the bling-bling of legal cases. It'll be better off renaming and keeping (or deleting ) than fighting out on a court case against a big company.

Econinja wrote:

The post above me is not a nercopost.
Anyways, back to topic.
No support because the ST can't afford lawyers and the bling-bling of legal cases. It'll be better off renaming and keeping (or deleting ) than fighting out on a court case against a big company.

As I said in my previous post, you do not necessarily need a laywer to do a sucessful takedown or counter-takedown.

I still don't know how much it costs to do a counter-takedown through chillingeffects, if anyone knows please tell me.

I really wish that there was something that could be done about this. These frivolous cases (pardon if I didn't spell that right) are only going to keep getting worse, unless something is done.

Exactly! This is basically only the 30 years war! Namco takes down one project, The AHOF makes a rename about a studio “infringement”, whats next? My project being removed due to using Pokemon Characters by TV Tokyo and Nintendo and such? I don't want that to happen to me, nor do I want that to happen to anyone else.

Semi-support. The ST doesnt have the money, though there should be something done about it if it happens again.

DownsGameClub wrote:

Exactly! This is basically only the 30 years war! Namco takes down one project, The AHOF makes a rename about a studio “infringement”, whats next? My project being removed due to using Pokemon Characters by TV Tokyo and Nintendo and such? I don't want that to happen to me, nor do I want that to happen to anyone else.

Semi-support. The ST doesnt have the money, though there should be something done about it if it happens again.

If you want to do something about it, do it yourself if they won't. Perhaps you should send a letter to the AHOF, Namco and a pretty good news source for tech stuff: Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/ Last time IMAX messed up by forbidding the use of their trademark by calling it “trademark infringement”, an article on Ars Technica appeared and a IMAX spokesperson apologized hastily.

I think in cases like this…Instead of fighting just ignore them. Why? trademark isn't the same as copyright so they will know they have no ground to stand on

Blaze349 wrote:

I think in cases like this…Instead of fighting just ignore them. Why? trademark isn't the same as copyright so they will know they have no ground to stand on

Ever heard of trademark/copyright trolls?

Alberknyis wrote:

They're having something copied from them.

So let's target kids who want to remake Pacman!
Is the Scratcher trying to:

• Use the legal doctrine of Fair Use because s/he can?
  
• Trying to make NAMCO lose profit and potentially go bankrupt?
  
• Trying to mislead people into thinking that the Scratch project is the real Pacman?
  

Or is s/he just a Scratcher, trying to see what cool games s/he can remake with Scratch?

You know no one likes being copied. We're lucky more projects haven't been removed.

The problem about copying is when the creator of the “copy” is taking all the credit for the idea and gameplay. Is the Scratcher intending to take all the credit for Pacman? Will anyone mistake his/her version of Pacman for the REAL Pacman?

Blaze349 wrote:

I think in cases like this…Instead of fighting just ignore them. Why? trademark isn't the same as copyright so they will know they have no ground to stand on

That's a good idea, but if you ignore them they'd probably start sending harsher measures and if you don't turn up at a court case or something the other guy would automatically win.

Cool_Guy10 wrote:

Blaze349 wrote:

I think in cases like this…Instead of fighting just ignore them. Why? trademark isn't the same as copyright so they will know they have no ground to stand on

That's a good idea, but if you ignore them they'd probably start sending harsher measures and if you don't turn up at a court case or something the other guy would automatically win.

The ST wouldn't need a lawyer so court wouldn't matter

iamunknown2 wrote:

Le Snippe

Uhh, yeah,
I wasn't trying to get at the legal copyright money stuff. My post stays exactly as it is. People don't like knowing that there are unoriginal people existing that take their ideas instead of making their own. I don't care about the real reason why they want it removed, because honestly there's really nothing I can do about it, and probably nothing the Scratch team can do about it, and come on, they've only ever deleted one of the five million projects existing, and they've only affected one studio.

Overdramatizing these events like this is like having a fear of planes because “there's always news about plane crashes”. Well, yeah, of course plane crashes would be on the news. Not because they're common, because they're rare. Just like why this forum even exists right now.