zlacker

>>spiral+(OP)
Everyone involved in this is terrible except itch.io; it's a shame litigation, the available method for redressing this, is often avoided due to the high expense.

>>juped+b3
As a naive and new adult entering the world, I would have assumed that all you need to do is report this to your police/government, and they'll start a case, preliminarily determine that "Yeah, some sort of fraud happened" and then proceed to start a court case against the accused party so that a jury/judge can determine it's validity.

The fact that lawyers and the "lawyer system", in conjunction with prosecutorial offices and the police, has made this expensive and pretty impossible for 99% of people and companies is a huge problem. It basically nullifies the whole point of government as protector of people's rights and enforcer of laws.

>>zo1+R6
It's very unlikely that anything criminal has happened here, so government is irrelevant. I'm not even sure we're seeing any malevolence, just rank incompetence.

>>oneeye+48
Not Criminal but invalid DMCA takedowns do open you up to lawsuits. I'm curious if both sides (aka the registrar and Funko) are liable or only Funko.

>>runeva+u9
> invalid DMCA takedowns do open you up to lawsuits

Invalid takedowns don’t open you up to anything. The only risk to takedowns is misrepresenting the purported owner but that’s not the case here and the risk would be from Funko not Itch.

Much of the reason for DMCA abuse is that beyond the notice being assumed legitimate there is basically no risk to the complaining party until they dispute a counter-notification.

Not that this is relevant in this case, as it was not a DMCA takedown. A takedown notice would have been addressed to Itch.