Jim Sterling in court.
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
Recommended Videos
:-| fuck they just took on the mouse... first rule of lawsuits is do not take on the mouse.. the mouse will always win and claim your first born as a sacrifice to keep walt disney's frozen corpse alive... children for the mouse god !Im Lang said:
realistically jim sterling will if he is smart keep totally quiet about this for the time being and let lawyers destroy these muppets before commenting
Holy shit! I thought I was bad at writing. The first two paragraphs have almost no commas in them. You would think they would put the effort into spellchecking their important legal Defense statement.Zhukov said:
To be fair, that isn't an actual legal document. More like a blog post requesting donations.tf2godz said:
Still, makes me wonder what any actual documents they end up submitting to court will look like. I'm imagining a judge sighing and pulling out a red pen to correct their grammar.
Contrary to the opinion of most people in this thread there are legal grounds to sue. Especially because the allegation maintains that Sterling knew the allegation to be false and made it anyway with full intention of retracting for the purposes of personal gain. I'm not sure that it's provable without a lot of legal expenses but it's not a crazy case. The claim for damages is broken down in the normal way that US damage claims normally are
Aren't these the hacks that made Slaughtering Grounds, then filed a false DMCA on Sterling's review of the game?
Yeah, I got no love for Jim, but I don't trust a word these guys say. He made a false claim, which he retracted/corrected later and they are relying on a technicality to get back at him for the scathing coverage of their disastrous product. He should let Polaris clean them out and finally be done with this nonsense.
Yeah, I got no love for Jim, but I don't trust a word these guys say. He made a false claim, which he retracted/corrected later and they are relying on a technicality to get back at him for the scathing coverage of their disastrous product. He should let Polaris clean them out and finally be done with this nonsense.
If I was me and I had skills as a game developer, I would created a Ace Attorney Fan game.JCAll said:
If we have Ace Attorney style games with Ponies and Touhou characters, we can have Jim God and Homo Die [I have fun with names] in a game as well.
Also please let me read the document to comment later
CaitSeith said:
Just to clarify this, Jim's YouTube gaming stuff is part of Maker (so the stuff he runs adds on, "Jimpression" videos and the like) while his website (reviews and the Jimquisition), which is funded by Patreon, is not part of Maker at all. Since the initial slaughtering grounds video was a gameplay, that's part of Disney, but all the other stuff was jimquisitions so not Disney. I think Disney would help Jim out, except for the fact that he needs absolutely no helptf2godz said:
Sterling receives around $117,000 a year from his patreon and gets paid per view on youtube.Hoplon said:
Out of interest, would the court account for past experience? Digihom I believe has actually stolen artwork before (a piece of promotional art for the Slaughtering Grounds had in fact been taken from Deviantart without permission) which Digihom then removed once that was found out. There may have been another incident mentioned in the Interview between Jim and Robert that was about them using artwork that had been on Shutterstock illegally which they bought but I can't say that's entirely on them.Albino Boo said:
OT: I'm not entirely sure they'll go ahead with this, after all they did say they'd take Jim to court at the time of the Slaughtering Grounds meltdown but I guess maybe they're desperate at this point. Kind of sucks about the harassment though, but can Jim really blamed on that? He's done videos in the past against harassing people and has specifically said he hates naming particular people like Molyneaux and Pitchford in case they get harassed. It's seems kind of odd to think of a Judge siding with them considering their entire business method, and it's not like Jim has consistently misrepresented what they've done, the only things I can think of are:
1) The mentioned accusation of theft which he retracted.
2) In the Interview claiming they'd made 5 games in a year and a half(?) and not six.
3) Accusing "Six Nights at Susie's" of violence against women when according to the dev you could beat men as well (though that wasn't in the trailer).
Kind of interested to see how this will go down.
There is no smoke without fire is not a defence. If you make a specific allegation then you have to be able to back it up with admissible evidence.TrulyBritish said:
The damage incurred on digital homicide was certainly caused by Jim revealing how shitty the game was. In order for them to successfully claim damages they need to show how the libel damaged him as opposed to Jim's larger work.
Unfortunately, if he claimed that they stole something and they didn't, then it is indeed libel and they would have a potential case. But Jim's legal defense would hopefully show that we don't think they're a joke because of that, we think they're a joke because their game sucked as Jim demonstrated and their response to him was atrocious. Whether or not they appropriated an asset doesn't mean shit to most of us. So how they can claim damages from that specific line is beyond me. They damaged themselves far more than Jim ever did and Jim's only damage against them was just in spotlighting what they'd done and how they responded to said spotlight.
Unfortunately, if he claimed that they stole something and they didn't, then it is indeed libel and they would have a potential case. But Jim's legal defense would hopefully show that we don't think they're a joke because of that, we think they're a joke because their game sucked as Jim demonstrated and their response to him was atrocious. Whether or not they appropriated an asset doesn't mean shit to most of us. So how they can claim damages from that specific line is beyond me. They damaged themselves far more than Jim ever did and Jim's only damage against them was just in spotlighting what they'd done and how they responded to said spotlight.
Ok, sounds fair. So is it possible for Digihom to actually win this suit? Just seems odd the court wouldn't account for their behaviour outside of this matter, but then I don't think they've actually done anything that's illegal have they? It's not illegal to "Asset Flip" as far as I know, so unless there's something illegal about them selling under multiple names? I mean, I'd say they're ethically wrong but that's not the same.Albino Boo said:
The thing about slander and libel is that they have to be demonstrable and malicious falsehoods perpetuated through widely distributed spoken word and written print respectively. Jim Sterling definitely qualifies as widely distributed and I even think he's pretty popular (I personally think he's wonderful and would love to kiss him on the mouth with tongue). However, from what I'm given to understand, all of the stuff he's said about Digital Homicide is kind of demonstrably true. I don't think (although I could be wrong) that Sterling puts things out there without proof unless they're just his opinions, i.e. "vote Donald Trump because I breathe through my skin" or "Mad Max was crap."
While it is possible for them to win the suit, they would need to show that it was this libel that damaged them and not the wealth of other things Jim said and that they did.TrulyBritish said:
I mean, I didn't really care that they may have stolen an asset. I just cared that Jim clearly showed their game was terrible and that their response to his video was atrocious. Heck, does their video contain potential libel too?
That being said, a win on their part is possible. Stating that they stole an asset they did not steal is defamatory. I just don't think it caused damages or any damages it caused were entirely dwarfed by their insanely unprofessional antics and the terribly low quality of their game. A decent lawyer would hopefully keep any damages at a minimum with this in mind.
How can the accusations be libelous and slanderous if they're true? Because DigiHom have fully admitted that they've stolen artwork directly from google image search without ever asking nor crediting the creators of that artwork. And this is what Jim (correctly) accused them of.
For example, the 'blood splatter' effect:
http://archive.is/ry1cB#selection-653.127-653.314
For example, the 'blood splatter' effect:
http://archive.is/ry1cB#selection-653.127-653.314
By bringing this to court DH effectively sued themselves. How you may ask? Discovery. Day one in discovery: "here is proof of claims, I, Jim Sterling has made" followed by, "Plantiffs claims are dismissed. They are assessed court costs" followed by, "and here is the documented monetary and time losses that I, Jim Sterling have incurred dealing with their harassment of my legal rights as an artist in this counter-claim. I wasn't going to bother, but hey now we're at a point where, hey fuck 'em"
I'm half-expecting him to spend every dime he makes suing and getting extra channel attention from the proceedings on pogs
I'm half-expecting him to spend every dime he makes suing and getting extra channel attention from the proceedings on pogs