Statement is from https://xcancel.com/OriginalFunko/status/1866255848366039468#m
From: https://xcancel.com/BrandShieldltd/status/1866161489528180988#m
Edit, bonus panel! What scum.
I'm just going to post this comment to this thread as well, since this is newer. Classic shifting of blame and no one taking responsibility for scummy actions.
Fun fact: Funko's current CEO is the ex-president of Wizards of the Coast!
Why is this relevant? Well, under her leadership, WotC sent pinkerton agents to someone's home to threaten them because they got some Magic the Gathering cards early. She said things like Dungeons & Dragons players were under-monetised, pushing to make the Table Top game more like a microtransaction-filled video game, and helped with the OGL scandal.
The OGL, for anyone unfamiliar, was an Open Gaming License WotC had for years with D&D 3rd party creators. It allowed certain things to be created using D&D mechanics and lore by anyone that followed its guidelines and allowances. A couple years ago, WotC tried to change that so they would make more money off of people trying to create things for D&D - to profit off of indie creators passionate about the game. There was a huge backlash, and they eventually went back on this decision.
All this to say, you can see what kind of leader the current Funko CEO is, and what's happening with itch isn't surprising to me.
That's quite telling, thanks for sharing.
Fucking Pinkertons? That's a company who can use a visit from Luigi.
Literally the company that RDR2 portrays as the bad guys, that sued the makers of the game and lost because they objectively ARE the bad guys.
They have also had over a century to rename themselves and haven't, which means they want the reputation the name has.
If you had a business that boiled down to "corporate mercenary" don't you think it would be incredibly convenient to have a reputation as a villainous bulldog?
There are very few companies who get to pretend they don't give a flying shit about people. This is one who will thrive on that reputation. Pinkertons and whatever Blackwater is now.
There's a difference between "villainous bulldog" and "association with them may get you shot in parts of america" (Appalachia IIRC)
And yet Blackwater has renamed itself again and again.
Apparently there is a "whoops, too much" level of villainy, even for villain factories.
They requested a takedown before talking to the website owners? That's such a hostile move
DMCA used to be used very very rarely because it carries(carried?) significant penalties for using it like a club. Now it's just being used like a club and it's quite obvious there's no penalty.
~~I don't believe that it was a malicious misuse. Most likely some fuckwit moron at Funko or Brandshield didn't understand the difference between the hosting platform and the registrar and sent the takedown request to the wrong place out of negligence.~~
It wasn't even a DMCA request.
Doesn't matter, compensation is in order.
If a company uses tools that act poorly, or does not invest in training staff appropriately, it is a decision they make to optimize their business.
When they fail, they should have to learn what the costs of those mistakes are. A tweet is not enough.
Sure, I don't disagree, that's not what I'm saying. All three offending parties could/should be held responsible, depending on how the takedown request was delivered.
Using AI driven software is willful negligence. Software can't take responsibility so the human operating it needs to take responsibility for the consequences of it. They took down the entire thing they need to face consequences. The hosting provider should also face consequences for overly broad responses to take down requests.
Except you wouldn't ever dare build any kind of automated system for fear of this exact situation. Remove the fear part and financially you wouldn't NOT build this system.
So Funko issued a non-apology blaming Brandshield.
Brandshield issued a non-apology blaming the registrar (Iwantmyname), and saying their AI tool definitely had nothing to do with it
And Iwantmyname hasn't even put out a statement.
Fucked all around, yet it seems nobody will be facing consequence for this except Itch.io who got their website nuked out of nowhere.
Though if I were Itch, I'd get a new registrar ASAP.
I'd do a new registrar either way.
I've worked at hosting companies in the past. I don't know the timeline, but I've never encountered a situation where one folded this fast and just take down a client's site over a copyright claim.
And our clients, because of the nature of the internet being the internet, a small percentage were real scumbag folks, who while the content was objectionable and disgusting, it wasn't illegal. Which means it stayed up.
If there was something highly illegal like csam or dark web stuff and it came from a federal agency, we'd take down the site immediately.
If it was a strong letter from a legal entity that we trusted, we would pass that to the client and recommend remediation. No takedown unless there was a court order.
If it was a weak letter from a random legal entity, we lol'ed and wait for the threat of a lawsuit/court order. This was surprisingly extremely common.
So wtf is this registrar doing to shit on their clients so fast without a court order?
Yeah, if Iwantmyname are so neglectful as to pull the entire plug on your website over a singlular copyright claim, then I'd move right the fuck along too. They're clearly not a trustworthy registrar.
To make things worse, Itch.io isn't exactly a small company either. If this happened to someone smaller, with less outreach to fight back with than Itch, I can only imagine they'd have no recourse against this neglectful behaviour.
They committed fraud with a false take down and are hoping they don't get the shit sewed out out them by pointing the finger.
tbf if all of this is true the registrar did do the most harm
Don't be fair to them either.
Iwantmyname acted incompetently, but so did Brandshield, who decided to go straight to the nuclear option of a registrar takedown, rather than issuing a takedown request to Itch themselves
The DNS provider (who is not necessarily also a registrar, but it's common that the registrar is also a provider) doesn't have any option to disable individual pages. They can only disable a whole subdomain or domain.
The server provider technically could, but it's much harder because the site is served on https, so they would most likely have to disable the whole server as well.
Not that the server provider was asked, it's just to illustrate that no one but the service owner (itch.io) can meaningfully block a single page. Asking the infrastructure providers is a dick move.
Edit: So the server provider was asked as well, but they're not as incompetent it seems. Also, instead of a copyright abuse, BrandShield falsely sent this as a fraud and phishing, which is another dick move.
So yeah, the DNS provider is incompetent, but BrandShield is the malicious actor here.
There are lots of finger-pointing here. Funko said the takedown was done by their partner, BrandShield. BrandShield said it was a URL-specific (or is it subdomain?) takedown, not the whole domain. The registrar, Iwantmyname, responded said takedown by taking down the WHOLE domain.
I think Funko shouldn't have trusted AI to do legal-related stuff. BrandShield is a stupid idea born from the AI-hype. It's stupid and shouldn't have existed. Iwantmyname is just as incompetent if not more--they haven't even released any public statement about this. Their customer support are also slow to response apparently.
Itch.io should move domain registrar. Funko should stop using BrandShield, it only damages their brand more.
Also what's up with Funko calling someone's mom lol. that's stupid
I also think that this is why AI won't replace our jobs. I've seen many instances where technologies replaces jobs, but this ain't it
Also: brand shield says they only wanted the url gone but you don't get that when talking to the registrar. Registrar are all or nothing, so clearly they knew they were doing this
I think this is a very important point. Why would you talk to a registrar of the domain to get a specific page offline. This doesn't make sense.
yup. someone is lying here
I think Iwantmyname may be the worst player in this story.
Everyone else kind of did what they were expected to do:
But:
The rest might be decent business partners if you are looking for their kind of service but Iwantmyname isn't to be trusted.
Agree, though I would not use the word "decent" about BrandShield or Funko. Being harmfully lazy and immoral legally and according to contract is still harmfully lazy and immoral.
While the registrar should have made more to understand the situation before acting, it's important to keep in mind that according to itch.io, the request was not a DMCA takedown but an accusation of "fraud and fishing". There's probably a very large legal exposure for a registrar to let criminal website use their service if they are made aware of it, so reducing their liability is probably their highest priority.
BrandShield is inexcusable for using such a claim as a first step.
URL-specific and they go to the registrar? What can they do, they don't manage the hosting
Well put, they can't just palm it off on the third party. You hired them and green lit the action.
The Idea to use AI to detect possible copyright infringements isnt even that bad. Its gets bad when you trust the AI to be able to tell things apart. If the alerts from the AI aren't reviewed by humans it is doomed to fail.
I notice it doesn't include the word "sorry".
It's really just "this thing happened" and nothing else, as if they're reporting on events where they're just innocent bystanders. Instead of saying what they did, it's "hey, we didn't do [detail]".
Is it a legal liability thing to avoid using specific words? It's hard to imagine it being bad PR to "properly" apologize (at least compared to releasing a non-apology apology statement).
Yes, theoretically Itch could sue them for lost revenue. Brandshield should be very afraid of Funko getting sued since getting your client sued can't look good
Why is it so hard just to say "this was not out intention, we recognize it was bad, and we are sorry."
There's a lot of words here for a non-apology.
Lawsuit liability.
Why do a decent thing when you have money on your side
Fuck Funko Pops.
Fuck BrandShield.
I accuse them both of causing itch.io to go down and it is their fault.
Fuck Funko and fuck their shitty CEO.
Not worth thinking about any further. I wish itch.io the best in their lawsuit.
A corpo bully pointing fingers at some AI slop they use, how convenient
Funko: We would like to apologise for being caught in the act, we will strive to better hide our asshole tactics next time, the person responsible for us getting caught has been reprimanded with 2 weeks paid time off.
$100 says they wouldn't have said shit even if this was a smaller platform than itch and people didn't basically put them on blast. Funko is just trying damage control now that their customers are calling foul. I seriously hope people stop buying these things as a punishment to this company using shitty AI and not actually apologizing, but I know thats wishful thinking.
Fuck all the corpo fucks involved here with their plausible deniability attempt. If you truly felt any remorse, you'd talk about how you'll disengage this AI chum service, or demand that requests are extremely precise or hyper targeted at specific direct issues. This story of blanket action helps the big company with monkey and always hurts the little guy that gets swept up in their ravenous wake.
Also, educate the next month of your online presence you boosting the brand you wronged with your reach. But you won't do shit, you aren't remorseful.
Personally I want to see the criminal shield removed for corporations. All C-Level executives become personally liable for any illegal actions, malfeasance, slander/liable, or injurious action perpetrated or instigated by the company with the ONLY defense being proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt (not just reasonable doubt) that an actor within or without the company caused the action with the express intent of harming the C-Level executives, either specific or generally.
Fuck corporate personhood. Fuck people making a LLC and doing whatever the fuck they want under the guise of the company then the company declares bankruptcy while they run off like a cartoon character with bags of money. Leadership liability and culpability should be the norm, not the exception.
I’m very interested in what the offending page looked like. itch.io in the first reports seemed to suggest it was a false positive, without outright saying so. Both Funko and BrandShield are quiet about it, but between the lines you can infer they think the AI tool’s report was legitimate.
It looks like this is the one:
https://funkofusion.itch.io/funko-fusion
Both match leafo's description:
[...] some person made a fan page for an existing Funko Pop video game (Funko Fusion), with links to the official site and screenshots of the game.
[...] I had removed the page and disabled the account.
It would be a real shame if abuse@dtnt.com (the domain registrar of brandshield.com) were to get a bunch of reports about scams and illegal activity found on the website. Bonus points for copying legal@dtnt.com.
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.