Jim Sterling in court.

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

But doesn't that all require the case to stay in Arizona? 'cause as far as I know neither DH nor Jim live in Arizona and only in Arizona can you sue for corrected facts, so why wouldn't Jim's legal team's first move be to move the case to Mississippi? Where it would immediately get dismissed.

 

[K12]

So I decided to search if Arizona Court laws have something unique on them.....and I think I found what DigiHom want to do:

Its seems DigiHom can present ONLY a single publication statement made by Jim which they can use from their case.

In summary, a defamation claim will arise when an individual publishes, i.e., communicates to a third party, a false and defamatory statement while knowing the statement was false, recklessly disregarding the veracity of the statement, or negligently failing to ascertain the truth of the statement.

So it seems DigiHom best bet is Jim's article like the other users said already.

Also I think will use "Negligent In Ascertaining Statement?s Truth" rule as well:

Negligence is conduct which creates an unreasonable risk of harm. It is the failure to use that amount of care which a reasonably prudent person would use under like circumstances

Yep, Jim is f*cked if this is truth because lets face it, even if the damage wasn't so high as DigiHom are claiming, it is still a Damage for them.

One problem for DH: They're suing him based on the one article which Jim corrected, but the damages they are claiming are from the entire back and forth between the two. Even if they are able to sue him for that article, they won't be able to get any claims because that article is not what has caused their company's reputation to be what it is.

That's an important point to make. DH's case has to make a direct link from that allegedly defamatory statement to the losses that they're claiming.

Arguing that the statement was defamatory and Jim was negligent in researching it is doable (barely) and arguing that Jim's coverage of them has damaged potential sales is doable (probably) but arguing that this single statement had a direct link to lost sales seems imposible... even for smart people which the Romine brothers clearly aren't.

Even if that goes through a counter-suit by Jim based on lost ad sales from their takedowns of his videos should be much higher anyway.

 

[Fsyco]

SNIP

But doesn't that all require the case to stay in Arizona? 'cause as far as I know neither DH nor Jim live in Arizona and only in Arizona can you sue for corrected facts, so why wouldn't Jim's legal team's first move be to move the case to Mississippi? Where it would immediately get dismissed.

DH (or rather, the Romine Brothers, who run DH) do live in Arizona. Jim's first move would be to claim that Arizona has no jurisdiction. I'm not entirely sure what happens after that (it either gets dismissed or bumped up to Federal court).

Retraction laws vary by state, and other states (I know Illinois is one) also allow you to sue for corrected statements. In fact, I think I remember hearing that retraction laws are in a minority.

 

[Kameburger]

Oh wow, they actually did it, I can't even imagine what crazy lawyer actually looked at this case and said 'yes, you are completely correct sir, this man has damaged you! How dare he. I shall fight for your legal rights!'

I mean I know they were threatening this shit all over the place but I'm actually extremely tickled at the levels of delusion this has reached. They have no leg to stand on, none. Jim could kick that leg and have it topple over with the mere mention of right to free speech and fair use. I don't know exactly what they're trying to say he did that isn't massively protected under U.S. and State law.

There's a lot of lawyers out there that would try to sue a ham sandwhich as long as you paid them. I'm not surprised that they found *someone* to do it.

Man, I just hope someone records the proceedings (if that's legal in Arizona), because this can only end in unmitigated disaster for the DH crew. Jim Sterling has never said anything that wasn't true about their games, and he retracted and pointed out the one thing in that one article that turned out to be false. He's also said, on multiple forms of social media along with his videos themselves, for his fans to specifically *not* harass anyone he talks about. If they want to sue the people who harassed them anonymously, that's one thing (I know a few celebrities have tried), but that's a whole different legal battle that Jim is totally unconnected to. Jim, and his (presumably better) lawyer is going to destroy these clowns.

The part I loved was where they claimed that a lot of the people harassing them weren't just assholes, but *competitors*. Foreign indie game developers trying to push poor Digital Homicide out of the marketplace. What magical fantasy world do these people live in, and how relevant do they think that they actually are? I've listened to the podcast where Jim interviews one of the DH guys and I literally cannot imagine that dude defending himself in front of a court room in any kind of intelligent, adult manner. Man, this is going to be such a shitshow XD

This has to be a scam. Like, just, collect a bunch of donations and then remove the claim. Or, pay their lawyer the minimal amount and then pocket the rest when the case inevitably gets thrown out. This has to be a scam.

Gogo Team Sterling.

No Lawyers, I've read that they will be representing themselves.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

This is going to be buried since it's halfway down the 7th page, but I think it should be posted. The following is the latest statement from DH regarding the case.

"After reading the onslaught of feedback I wanted to write a quick explanation here of the context of the current lawsuit. I have seen countless posts stating this lawsuit is in relation to opinion and criticism when in fact it has nothing to do with it. This is not about someone not liking our games this is about someone printing defamatory and false information to you the public and convincing you something is true when it is not and causing massive damage to us in the wake. This is not about you as a normal individual hopping onto the internet and posting an opinion that may upset someone. This is about holding media figures and news outlets to a sense of duty to print factual information not just something to collect views and hits from.

Think of it like this, when you log on to the internet and say whatever comes to mind about someone else it's like walking down the street and you may accidently or purposely walk into someone. Most of the time it's just shrugged off with a hey watch where you are going. Now when you are a media figure printing articles with information you say is fact with 300,000 followers you are no longer just a person walking down the street you are a semi and can cause extreme damage to those you run into. Defamation has become even more relevant with the boom of the internet not just in the context of amount of articles but the way in which those articles are distributed. When a newspaper printed an article that held defamatory material it was distributed and that was it since that days paper had a limited quantity to distribute. Articles and videos of todays news are in fact a neverending printing press exposing the same defamatory statements over and over to new individuals every single day.

If you stop and think about what I have said here you will realize this is to protect you as well, you could be the next person an irresponsible semi driver plows into on the internet highway.

Below is a request from my brother James for support for the lawsuit he has filed. I would like to add the following: The individual being sued has never apologized, full retracted false statements, informed his audience not to harass us after we requested, or showed any remorse for damages caused and instead collected information in an attempt to have a countersuit or lawsuit to file to cause further damage. This says alot about the individual we have had to deal with for over a year and hopefully will encourage supporters to help with this funding request. We have watched the destruction of a massive amount of indie developers over the past 18 months and realized someone needs to make a stand. Thank you for your support and patronage as we make a stand for developer and individuals rights."

Source
http://www.digitalhomicide.ninja/#!lawsuits-information/psyu3

EDIT:
I'm not going to post another block of text since this one is long, but here's a statement from them that talks about all the criticism they've recieved. It was posted late last month.

http://www.digitalhomicide.ninja/#!Hello/c1r22/56cfc34e0cf24bcda475b301

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

After reading their blog where they attempt to give advice on how to make games, I think they really do see themselves as talented individuals with restricted resources who saw their heavy investment unfairly attacked by some rich dude on the internet. I can see where they're coming from. Jim has a lot more money than them and the worst they can do is deprive someone of a few dollars. The worst Sterling can do is shut them down and waste a considerable amount of their money.

I still think they're in way over their head and don't realize it.

 

[sumanoskae]

Hello all,

I am unfortunately here asking for help as I've taken massive losses from false statements said about me, my brother/business partner, and my small game development company. The damages on my products alone are very large including emotional and punitive damage requests.

Oh my god. Massive EMOTIONAL damage? I... what... is this how litigation works in the United States?

Have these two loons been taking notes from Donald Trump?

Jim Sterling uses "Criticize", CRITICAL HIT. Roll 2d10 for Emotional Damage... 54!

IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE!

Lucky for me I took the "Grow the fuck up" feat back at level 17 - it gives me a 85% resistance to Emotional Damage.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

How....how can Jim Fucking Sterling Son shut them down, exactly? Their cheaply made, horribly buggy games are going to be cheaply made and horribly buggy regardless of whether or not Jim Fucking Sterling Son shines a light on them. At best, you can blame Jim Fucking Sterling Son for saving a few customers from accidentally buying their games thinking that they're worth it.

And if "stopping us from tricking people out of their money" is now a negative quality...well..

Like I said, I'm pretty sure they're genuine after seeing that blog. They're basically delusional if they think they're in any position to give advice on how to make a video game, but they're genuine. I'm trying to see things from their perspective.

I'm of the opinion that Sterling actually boosted their sales since otherwise they would have disappeared like so much else on Steam. It wasn't much and they can't blame their financial failures on Sterling for that reason. Maybe that's their idea, but it really hasn't helped them. Given how much they're into the hole already with them stating their latest game would take 2 years to be profitable, I think they're genuine because if they lose this they stand to lose pretty hard after the legal fees.

Also, it's a tick of mine, but I really don't like ellipses being used to imply nefarious or negative things. It just grates on me.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm of the opinion that Sterling actually boosted their sales since otherwise they would have disappeared like so much else on Steam.

I doubt the commentary made any marginal difference either way, honestly. I've heard that all publicity is good publicity, but frankly never seen the numbers to back that up. It's brilliant for a product to saturate the advertising spaces until we automatically pick up a coke when we want a drink, but negative news stories really don't have the same effect.

Similarly, I doubt their sales have really taken a hit from the commentary, either. Maybe a little one, but only a subset of people likely to be following internet reviewers will see them, and such people aren't going to be in the habit of just picking up early-access games willy-nilly and without research very often.

Nawp, I think Sterling's main intention was to shine a light on the early-access system in its entirety, which is much likelier to be impacted by the whole debacle.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

I doubt the commentary made any marginal difference either way, honestly. I've heard that all publicity is good publicity, but frankly never seen the numbers to back that up. It's brilliant for a product to saturate the advertising spaces until we automatically pick up a coke when we want a drink, but negative news stories really don't have the same effect.

Similarly, I doubt their sales have really taken a hit from the commentary, either. Maybe a little one, but only a subset of people likely to be following internet reviewers will see them, and such people aren't going to be in the habit of just picking up early-access games willy-nilly and without research very often.

Nawp, I think Sterling's main intention was to shine a light on the early-access system in its entirety, which is much likelier to be impacted by the whole debacle.

I did look up the numbers and they are quite pathetic. It does experience peaks, but Sterling's videos occur at the same time as the release so it's difficult to tell. That will likely work in Sterling's favour since they have to prove they were materially harmed.

As for Sterling's intent, I do agree to a degree that he does pick on poorly made games. But they are poorly made and the public has a right to know that. It is one of his pet projects to clean up Steam Greenlight or at least serve as a constant reviewer of what pops up on there. Digital Homicide was just one of many and when they got really uppity of course Sterling was going to laugh at them. In his eyes, they're outright disrespecting the market and now they're trying desperately to turn the tables so they can continue their shady practices.

What do I think is going though DH's head? I think it's a mix of the two extremes. They genuinely have justified everything that they've done in their head and they see silencing Sterling as a good thing for them and for the community.

 

[Benny Blanco]

This is pretty dumb.

We have some problems with libel trial tourism in the UK because of fairly robust/draconian (depending on your POV) libel laws, but in cases where there is an out-of-jurisdiction publication, there has to be a reasonable level of proof that there would be a readership for the libelous statement in the UK.

By the same token, unless there were a decent readership in AZ for the offending article, why would they sue?

Not a fan of JS- I watched the Jimquisition a few times and some of uncivil war, but he always came off as a slimy, self-congratulatory douche with a bully pulpit IMO. In the case of this actually going to court his smug victory lap would be unbearable.

 

[rcs619]

but he always came off as a slimy, self-congratulatory douche with a bully pulpit IMO. In the case of this actually going to court his smug victory lap would be unbearable.

To be fair, that's kind of the whole point of the character he plays in the Jimquisition He literally *has* a pulpit.

 

[Fsyco]

By the same token, unless there were a decent readership in AZ for the offending article, why would they sue?

Mostly they're suing him in AZ because they live in AZ.

But you're assuming they want this to go to trial. What I suspect DigiHom really wants is for Jim to settle this so that they can get a ton of money. Its less about the lawsuit itself and more of the threat of a lawsuit. It's kind of like the Sword of Damocles. It would actually be a reasonable strategy if A) they had a real case and B) Jim didn't have more money, and thus be in a position to drag this lawsuit out if need be.

 

[SweetShark]

Very interesting things I read from all of you people.
However can someone confirm if there is something special with the Privileged Category in Arizona?
I couldn't find something related with the laws.

 

[Politrukk]

SNIP

But doesn't that all require the case to stay in Arizona? 'cause as far as I know neither DH nor Jim live in Arizona and only in Arizona can you sue for corrected facts, so why wouldn't Jim's legal team's first move be to move the case to Mississippi? Where it would immediately get dismissed.

It depends, for Jim the higher up the foodchain the better in terms of the strictness of the law.

but if they're moving states... in Illinois Jim could apparently be convicted straight away but it wouldn't win DH any damages(money) (there was an Illinois Lawyer on another forum basically doing the same breakdown I did from the view of the law in his state).

 

[TrulyBritish]

I doubt the commentary made any marginal difference either way, honestly. I've heard that all publicity is good publicity, but frankly never seen the numbers to back that up. It's brilliant for a product to saturate the advertising spaces until we automatically pick up a coke when we want a drink, but negative news stories really don't have the same effect.

Similarly, I doubt their sales have really taken a hit from the commentary, either. Maybe a little one, but only a subset of people likely to be following internet reviewers will see them, and such people aren't going to be in the habit of just picking up early-access games willy-nilly and without research very often.

Nawp, I think Sterling's main intention was to shine a light on the early-access system in its entirety, which is much likelier to be impacted by the whole debacle.

I did look up the numbers and they are quite pathetic. It does experience peaks, but Sterling's videos occur at the same time as the release so it's difficult to tell. That will likely work in Sterling's favour since they have to prove they were materially harmed.

As for Sterling's intent, I do agree to a degree that he does pick on poorly made games. But they are poorly made and the public has a right to know that. It is one of his pet projects to clean up Steam Greenlight or at least serve as a constant reviewer of what pops up on there. Digital Homicide was just one of many and when they got really uppity of course Sterling was going to laugh at them. In his eyes, they're outright disrespecting the market and now they're trying desperately to turn the tables so they can continue their shady practices.

What do I think is going though DH's head? I think it's a mix of the two extremes. They genuinely have justified everything that they've done in their head and they see silencing Sterling as a good thing for them and for the community.

As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be particularly notable spikes in playership after Sterling has covered them. I can't confirm this, but I have a feeling that the larger spikes are around the times Digital Homicide have been selling one of their larger bundles e.g. their current-isa "Thank God for Digital Homicide" bundle which has something like 18 games for $0.99. This also doesn't include all the Steam keys they seem to give away to convince people to Greenlight their new games.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

As much as I would LOVE to see Jim, so two-faced Harvey Dent would tell him to get some class, Sterling get taken down hard, I'm on his side with this one. DH are a pack of talentless hacks, and this really just proves their priorities are complete crap. Rather than spend that money on making games that DON'T suck, they'd rather use it to sue a guy who constantly calls them out on how much they suck.

 

[Silvanus]

As much as I would LOVE to see Jim, so two-faced Harvey Dent would tell him to get some class, Sterling get taken down hard [...]

Can I ask how he's two-faced?

I've seen the charge before, but usually it rests on the fancy that he's "anti-consumer", an accusation which never seemed to hold any weight.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

As much as I would LOVE to see Jim, so two-faced Harvey Dent would tell him to get some class, Sterling get taken down hard [...]

Can I ask how he's two-faced?

I've seen the charge before, but usually it rests on the fancy that he's "anti-consumer", an accusation which never seemed to hold any weight.

It's not that he's anti-consumer. It's that he' pro-consumer, but only when it's not involving his buddies in the indi-industry. Sad to say, it does come back to GamerGate, but it wan't his condemnation of it that got me to start calling him two faced.

It's like this:

Jim knew right off that this crap would turn ugly and kept inventing excuses not to comment because he knew he'd be expected to condemn the indie clique. After all, he'd condemned a different, foreign indie clique for the exact same thing when they'd crossed him less than two weeks ago. What you need to keep in mind is at the time MundaneMatt was still a pretty big thing since he was the one that was slapped with the original DMCA and he'd gone around to other youtubers like ReviewtechUSA to clear up misconceptions on what this was in the first week. Well people contrasted that with Jim getting hit with similar charges not too long ago and it became clear the ONLY thing Jim could do was condemn the Gamers are Dead people.

But Jim, unbeknownst to us, was a part of that clique. He couldn't sell them out because he was taking money and side jobs for them. In fact, one of his previous episodes was actually him condemning Wizardchan against Valkenberg with no evidence, because she was his "friend".

Then you factor in that the Escapist Megathread had already popped up, but the hashtag hadn't yet. So it was at a point where hundreds of people were watching him expectantly and he couldn't dismiss them as a group for anything.
So Jim is in a real bind here. His act DEMANDS that he attack his own clique and he can't just sweep it under the rug. So he stalls, saying "the time isn't right" then less than a week later he's waiting for the dust to settle. Meanwhile people are starting to remember that he'd defended these people before, and the Gamers are Dead articles are literally just coming out. So people are starting to realize that maybe Jim isn't the consumer advocate he says he is.
So he tries to distract everyone with a bright happy message about "good" indie games that's transparently a diversion, and the audience is really starting to get pissed. So he apoloises. On twitter, linking to a twitlonger very few people would read. So he acknowledges he was "wrong", but attempts to save face.

Then about a week later when he has to make another video lo and behold, he's linking to the Gamers are Dead articles to "inform" people about what's going on, and trying to passive aggressive lie about what we wanted, as snidley as possible. A little bit after that The Escapist gets DSOS'd and instead of panicking with the other contributors, he takes to twitter and gets friendly with Valkenberg and her buddies like nothing's wrong, which in and of itself is suspicious as fuck.

Through ALL of this it's increasingly obvious where his loyalties lie not just with his words or actions, but on his face. More than anybody else, he's increasingly haggard as the days and weeks go by and more and more unkempt with each passing video. Anyone with eyes can see that he bet on the wrong horse and is really nervous about it. This was for many people the straw that broke the camels back, because Jim was considered to be one of "the good guys" who'd take AAA and Indie alike to task for the shit they'd done. So for him to screw up like this was a clear, real time illustration of how bad the industry corruption had gotten.

TLDR:

He is pro consumer but only when it suits him, is there a game he can mock and get tons of ad rev from? "Oh this game is bad steam shouldn't have this!" is a AAA company bringing out a broken game? "Oh this game should've been fixed!" he takes the lowest hanging fruit, the blindly obvious stance anyone would make but when it comes to making a hard choice, having to demand better from your friends who work in the industry?

"Oh it's those dudebro entitled gamers making crap up to harass those strong independent womyn devs again."