Last of Us Copyright Claim Finale: Sony Surrenders (VL227)

The saga of Sony and Naughty Dog's "Last of Us Part II" DMCA takedown and copyright claim extravaganza comes to an end as Sony and Muso Limited (its copyright strike proxy) propose a settlement with the affected YouTube content creators.

What are the terms of the proposed settlement?

Why do I characterize this move as a surrender by Sony?

How might the affected YouTubers decide to be cheeky with respect to Sony's request?

And what of the claim that started it all, that Geeks and Gamers had a live-stream struck which included no leaked materials?

Just because it's over doesn't make it right...in Virtual Legality.

(DON'T GET CHEEKY SONY) - Thumbnail/Video Screenshot from:
“The Last of Us Part II | Release Date Reveal Trailer | PS4”
YouTube Video – September 24, 2019 – PlayStation Europe

#TheLastOfUs #Copyright #Takedown

***
Discussed in this episode:

"Sony’s New Strategy? Have YouTube Run Out the Clock (VL224)"
YouTube Video - May 14, 2020 - Hoeg Law

"Naughty Dog RESPONDS To The Strike Against My Channel"
YouTube Video - May 16, 2020 - Hoeg Law

"Sony, Muso, and Angry Joe: Last of Us Leak Legalities (Pt. 5) (VL221)"
YouTube Video - May 11, 2020 - Hoeg Law

"Sony / Naughty Dog Reach Out To Make An Offer | Will My Last Of Us 2 Strikes Go Away?!?"
YouTube Video - May 16, 2020 - Ryan Kinel - RK Outpost

"Is Sony Illegally Using the DMCA to Muzzle Last of Us Leaks? (VL215)"
YouTube Video - April 30, 2020 - Hoeg Law

"Last of Us Leaks: Counters, Fair Use, and Unpublished Works (VL217)"
YouTube Video - May 4, 2020 - Hoeg Law

"Precedent Lost: Why Encourage Settlement, and Why Permit Non-party Involvement in Settlements?"
Notre Dame Law Review (Vol. 75:1) (1999) - Leandra Lederman

"Linking to Copyrighted Materials"
Digital Media Law Project Website

Tarintino v Gawker
CV 14-603-JFW (APril 22, 2014)

"I'm still waiting for you to respond"

"Dear Geeks+Gamers"

***
"Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law).

CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE:

DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL.

***
Twitter: @hoeglaw

PODCAST VERSIONS ALSO AVAILABLE

[HoegLaw]

Just because it's over doesn't make it right...in Virtual Legality.

[diegoantoniorosariopalomin]

I disagree with the idea of settlements. Guilty parties should be held responsible for their actions whether or not the affected wants to pursue legal action

[RanMouri]

"Sony is clearly aware of the fact that just going and using a cannonball, or a sledgehammer--"
Or a golf club. **cough cough**

[chadtalbot]

Shopping at Walmart, but phone notifies me there's a new Hoeg Law video .. thank goodness for a good data plan 👍

[trucid]

Sony may have given youtubers an out, but we won't soon forget this.

[lemon]

Fighting sony in court is pointless. They have an army of lawyers and funds. If we really want to get to them, we need to hit them where it hurts - profits. Just boycott the game. Simply don't buy it. Don't buy the console either. Just watch how fast they start an apology tour.

[gamingwithritz]

What a rollercoaster. Almost hope Sony will do something to continue the ride, though I know it should end.

Thanks for the coverage this was great

[sozaj]

I hope that Sony really changes its tune from here on. They have some major atoning to do.
[Edit]: the thing is that I really like Sony, a lot, and I hate to see them do this.

[MrBillclintin]

There is one simple way to punish Sony. Don't buy products from Sony, the user is boss.

[therepublica]

Great video series. Sony should have had these discussions earlier rather than striking everybody. If I were them, I would have fought them on the pictures as well.

[Acerthorn]

Just saw the description. So ... they're admitting fault in this case? Not just silently backing off, but actively and positively saying "We were wrong and we're sorry?" Holy shit!

[Bacteriophagebs]

Nope. They're still doing it. They just released the first set of claims before they were required to take legal action (14 days under the DMCA) and started a new round. By releasing the first set of claims, they saved themselves from facing countersuits for misrepresenting their claims under the DMCA. They knew exactly what they were doing: silencing criticism and punishing critics by abusing the flawed YouTube copyright claim system, and they're back for more.

[therealfridayth]

It may not be "legally operative", but it is evidence of bad faith.

And this is not over at all. Multiple other people who have received this email have already stated thay they believe this is a form of legal extortion.

[jonathanccast]

I think settlements *do* create precedents.

Sometimes they're precedents just for how those two litigants are going to behave, which makes it a form of private law, but knowing under what circumstances your opponent or opponents in general are likely to back down is useful for deciding what to do.

[vimzim]

The problem with the law is that it holds the general public hostage because it is largely inaccessible; it is very expensive and time consuming, look how long the Sargon of Akkad copyright claim has taken for something which even the judge admitted from the outset that it seemed obviously to be fair use and it was likely the way the case would pan out yet it has taken many years and an absurd amount of money to come to a conclusion and I still don't believe a verdict has been made yet on the legal fees.

I honestly do not find there is a significant difference between extortion and the threat of legal action via copyright abuse. They are not using the law as a defense, they are using it's expensive nature to extort or coerce an outcome they know that legally or morally they do not have and will drop claims or cases they fear will result in precedence against them. The few cases we have for precedence has gone as expected and it has taken nut cases to pursue cases to the bitter end, corporations like Sony would never have allowed those cases to go that far.

I think something has to be done, we are not getting the legal protection from case precedence and corporations like Google refuse to look at fair use precedence when establishing if claims are fair use or not. If you had to go through an onerous federal court to fight parking fines then councils could just slap them at people whenever because fighting the claim would cost more than just paying it out. That isn't a fair legal system. It is abusive and immoral, something needs to be done about it.

[qapaMcFly]

I was banned on multiple fan sites (some obviously shilling for Sony) for posting a meme... Can't wait to get Xbox series x instead of PS5.

People need to vote with their wallet.

[olpossum]

“What you do today can improve all of your tomorrows.” —Ralph Marston
#ShrimpFriedRice

[randyallgood]

All creators should sue for lose of income pain suffering and mental anguish and all legal fees and court costs

[lobstereleven]

Thanks for the video! I like Sony products and I own a PS4, but, I don't consider myself to be a diehard Sony fan. I have enjoyed their content but after this incident, I am seriously questioning whether to buy the PS5 or continue to purchase Sony products. I don't like Sony or their products enough to continue to support them financially after this whole debacle. Just my two cents. Keep up the good work.

[spazbog]

The only possible and I use that term loosely infringement was someones avatar on twitter that in the video was basically a 4x4 pixel blurred image.