Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Theo - t3․gg" channel.

@MissSmoozie there are certain steps in the process where malicious DMCA requiests Should result in the individuals responsible facing perjury charges. Of course, you only get in trouble if you Knowingly sign off on false claims, so all sorts of dodges are employed there (AI (which shouldn't be able to legally file the thing as a result), two people in the proecess where one makes all the decisions and then just tells the the other 'this is so', with the second person filing the form on the basis of this, simply going out of their way to not actually confirm anything, or straight up lieing about whether or not they knew anything that would indicate an issue, or just not being in the USA and not targeting anyone big enough to get the government moving over copyright (which pretty much no one in any position of power, other than those trying to abuse it, cares about), and the legal system really has no interest in actually processing perjury charges unless your specific instance of perjury took place in a court room and also pissed off the presiding judge in the process.
20
Nah, good odds there was an AI (well "AI") involved. Humans are much more expensive. Much easier to set an AI that isn't actually suitable for the job to the task, involve no humans at all in the decision making process, and then pretend that this somehow makes the results not at all your fault (hint: unless the people who made the AI for you effectively scammed you, it's your fault. If they did, it's their fault. Either way, its not the AI's fault, because AI aren't people, not even to the limited extent that businesses (it's not just corporations) are considered people (it's entirely a matter of the logistics and reliability of the law. 'Businesses count as people* for legal purposes except where otherwise specified' just causes Massively less issues than the alternatives). *or, probably more accurately 'a business counts as a person'.
7
Here's a fun extra bonus: they're not actually AI. If they were Actually AI then trying to blame the AI would be equivalent to trying to blame an employee: the response would be along the lines of 'Great. Now prove malice on the part of the employee or it's still (at least partially) your fault anyway.' Really, if 'it's the AI's fault' were valid then that Should be the equivalent of 'it's microsoft excel's fault'... which is to say, suddenly it is the problem of the people who Made the 'AI' (or spreadsheet program, or whatever) that it is not fit for purpose... or it promptly gets bounced back on the basis of 'it's entirely fit for it's Intended purpose, your using it for things other than that intended purpose is entirely on you' and you're back where you started: it's the fault of the company using 'AI' for things it shouldn't be used for.
7
slight correction: the part of the gaming community who actually keep up with this stuff and give a damn about any of the involved parties won't forget this. The vast majority of people who buy and play games... don't.
3
@mjt1517 Depends on what information was or wasn't available to them regarding Brandshield and how honest Brandshield was with them, I suspect. If they can present a sufficiently good case that they were mislead it becomes Brandshield's problem again. Well, for the things Brandshield did. Not so much for their other actions.
2