Crytek Filing Lawsuit Against CIG

Kefo

https://www.docdroid.net/N0hyv2e/031128808931.pdf

CIG filed their response to Crytek’s amended response. I’m obviously no lawyer and clearly biased but it sounds like a lot of whining to me from CIG’s lawyer

MaxBacon

It's not "whining", it's opposing to requests that Crytek made, by stating they are trying to "circumvent the rules" of the court itself and asking their request to be rejected.

Also, watching the youtube laywer take on it, defends the judge made correct and incorrect rulings on the MtD:


The judge understands copyright and contract law but fundamentally has no understanding of how software development works? Stay tuned for the next episode... \o/

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

It's not "whining", it's opposing to requests that Crytek made, by stating they are trying to "circumvent the rules" of the court itself and asking their request to be rejected.

Also, watching the youtube laywer take on it, defends the judge made correct and incorrect rulings on the MtD:


The judge understands copyright and contract law but fundamentally has no understanding of how software development works? Stay tuned for the next episode... \o/

I am not sure I'd double down on the YouTube lawyers who seemed so sure Crytek didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.  They haven't exactly been right, from the court proceedings.

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

I am not sure I'd double down on the YouTube lawyers who seemed so sure Crytek didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.  They haven't exactly been right, from the court proceedings.

Yes but overall when it comes to judge rulings before the case even starts, one can understand that without much knowledge on the actual industry, they just apply copyright/contract law to their ability, it will be during the case itself that all that contextualization will happen, then yes we'll see the merit of the accusation and the defense.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

It's not "whining", it's opposing to requests that Crytek made, by stating they are trying to "circumvent the rules" of the court itself and asking their request to be rejected.

Also, watching the youtube laywer take on it, defends the judge made correct and incorrect rulings on the MtD:

The judge understands copyright and contract law but fundamentally has no understanding of how software development works? Stay tuned for the next episode... \o/

Why would you trust this guy?
Is his case history better than the presiding judge or is it simply that he's whispering sweet nothings in your ear?

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:
Why would you trust this guy?

Is his case history better than the presiding judge or is it simply that he's whispering sweet nothings in your ear?

Did I say I trust? I just read his input, I'm sure others will also give their input, as the case has not even started.

Would the MtD ruling differ if the judge was informed on the reality of the industry like he is implying? Idk, but that's exactly the type of things that will be argued in court.

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

I am not sure I'd double down on the YouTube lawyers who seemed so sure Crytek didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.  They haven't exactly been right, from the court proceedings.

Yes but overall when it comes to judge rulings before the case even starts, one can understand that without much knowledge on the actual industry, they just apply copyright/contract law to their ability, it will be during the case itself that all that contextualization will happen, then yes we'll see the merit of the accusation and the defense.

Right, but that's not the message the video is trying to send.  I mean, the title says the judge fucked up.  At this point, the YouTube lawyers seem more like they're pandering to the base than trying to make an unbiased assessment from the outside looking in.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:
Why would you trust this guy?

Is his case history better than the presiding judge or is it simply that he's whispering sweet nothings in your ear?

Did I say I trust? I just read his input, I'm sure others will also give their input, as the case has not even started.

Would the MtD ruling differ if the judge was informed on the reality of the industry like he is implying? Idk, but that's exactly the type of things that will be argued in court.

Well you clearly trusted it enough to post it here and repeat his assertion that she isn't informed about the reality of the industry.

The video seems like an awful clickbaity piece of trash imo, it's got a crass title which is hardly the sign of one professional showing respect for another professional.

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

Well you clearly trusted it enough to post it here and repeat his assertion that she isn't informed about the reality of the industry.

The video seems like an awful clickbaity piece of trash imo, it's got a crass title which is hardly the sign of one professional showing respect for another professional. Guy is like a dumb Saul Goodman 

It's just opinions, there's no lack of those, some are more informed than others, we'll have to wait and see. I just posted here, and I'll post Leonard once he also does his take on the case update. Youtube is made of clickbait as the gaming media and so forth is, I've learned to ignore that and see what the content actually is.

rpmcmurphy

Leonard being the guy with the stupid hats?

If it's just opinions perhaps you should start posting Derek Smart's coverage just to even out the views of the esteemed youtube lawyers

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

Leonard being the guy with the stupid hats?

If it's just opinions perhaps you should start posting Derek Smart's coverage just to even out the views of the esteemed youtube lawyers 

What do his hats matter to his job? He is a copyright lawyer, so of everyone around, I don't see anyone else more informed on this stuff that is following the case than him. His views when he did consider both Crytek and CIG responses were balanced as to what could be of merit or not.

And this is all about bias, if the "youtube lawyers" were giving this as one easy win for Crytek, multiple posters here would be all about what they had to say, so... meh.

rpmcmurphy

The hats matter because of the impression they give which is "I don't take myself seriously and therefore neither should you", hardly the message you want to be sending to people when you're a lawyer...

sgel

MaxBacon said:

And this is all about bias, if the "youtube lawyers" were giving this as one easy win for Crytek, multiple posters here would be all about what they had to say, so... meh.

Ironic that since their bias is the other way round, you are all about what they have to say

Balmong

rpmcmurphy said:

Balmong said:

And Roberts does stand lose something, if this goes under, his name. He'll never work in the media industry again if this crashes and burns.

But you are correct, I doubt CIG would have taken the steps they did if they didn't think they had an ace in the hole. Whether it'll fly or not remains to be seen. 

I think they took the steps they did out of hubris and their belief that Crytek was going to fold, there were comments made by CIG basically saying that at the time.

This I have no problem believing. If I had to bet, I would have said the same. It really seemed like they were going to for awhile there.

ScotchUp

Kefo said:

https://www.docdroid.net/N0hyv2e/031128808931.pdf

CIG filed their response to Crytek’s amended response. I’m obviously no lawyer and clearly biased but it sounds like a lot of whining to me from CIG’s lawyer

A lot of people expected Orwin to respond fast, because of certain things he has done could very well end up with his disbarment. This is really getting interesting.

ScotchUp

MadFrenchie said:

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

I am not sure I'd double down on the YouTube lawyers who seemed so sure Crytek didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.  They haven't exactly been right, from the court proceedings.

Yes but overall when it comes to judge rulings before the case even starts, one can understand that without much knowledge on the actual industry, they just apply copyright/contract law to their ability, it will be during the case itself that all that contextualization will happen, then yes we'll see the merit of the accusation and the defense.

Right, but that's not the message the video is trying to send.  I mean, the title says the judge fucked up.  At this point, the YouTube lawyers seem more like they're pandering to the base than trying to make an unbiased assessment from the outside looking in.

Well to be fair, YouTube people tend to broadcast for the cash, so whatever brings in viewers the better.

MaxBacon

sgel said:

Ironic that since their bias is the other way round, you are all about what they have to say

Not really, I've linked the Leonard stream that was going to do his own take on the case (I think it was via stream at first) before I knew what he had to say about it, just wanted to see that more informed take on it, especially from people who explain their argument not just "Derek it" all over with hyperbole and call it a day.

MadFrenchie

ScotchUp said:

MadFrenchie said:

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

I am not sure I'd double down on the YouTube lawyers who seemed so sure Crytek didn't have a leg to stand on in the first place.  They haven't exactly been right, from the court proceedings.

Yes but overall when it comes to judge rulings before the case even starts, one can understand that without much knowledge on the actual industry, they just apply copyright/contract law to their ability, it will be during the case itself that all that contextualization will happen, then yes we'll see the merit of the accusation and the defense.

Right, but that's not the message the video is trying to send.  I mean, the title says the judge fucked up.  At this point, the YouTube lawyers seem more like they're pandering to the base than trying to make an unbiased assessment from the outside looking in.

Well to be fair, YouTube people tend to broadcast for the cash, so whatever brings in viewers the better.

That's true, for an outsider's unbiased professional opinion, I'd recommend searching for articles where a reporter reached out to, say, a law professor specializing in the area to ask their take.  That's where you normally get the unbiased "here's what I see from the details we know" kind of thing.  YouTube pulls money into the equation, which biases pretty much everyone in some way.

Which, hint hint @BillMurphy, reaching out to some professors/lawyers without previous involvement to ask them to review and comment on the merits of the case would be a great idea for a news article on the ongoing proceedings, imho.

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

That's true, for an outsider's unbiased professional opinion, I'd recommend searching for articles where a reporter reached out to, say, a law professor specializing in the area to ask their take.  That's where you normally get the unbiased "here's what I see from the details we know" kind of thing.  YouTube pulls money into the equation, which biases pretty much everyone in some way.

You talk that the money sets the bias, I am wondering how exactly would you make more or less money by "siding" with Crytek or CIG? Because you're implying the money factor here leads to bias but I am figuring out this argument of yours.

Wouldn't side with Crytek generate them more money for one Youtuber at that? If they were to state that Crytek has this strong case that will destroy CIG in court would be the best type of clickbait.

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

That's true, for an outsider's unbiased professional opinion, I'd recommend searching for articles where a reporter reached out to, say, a law professor specializing in the area to ask their take.  That's where you normally get the unbiased "here's what I see from the details we know" kind of thing.  YouTube pulls money into the equation, which biases pretty much everyone in some way.

You talk that the money sets the bias, I am wondering how exactly would you make more or less money by "siding" with Crytek or CIG? Because you're implying the money factor here leads to bias but I am figuring out this argument of yours.

Wouldn't side with Crytek generate them more money for one Youtuber at that? If they were to state that Crytek has this strong case that will destroy CIG in court would be the best type of clickbait.

No because the CIG knights will try to crucify you to your channel and probably stop watching right after and you’d lose revenue. 

However if you take CIG’s side and your video is all about how the judge fucked up or how Cryteks lawyers are just reaching for anything then you will have an already rabid fan base watching your videos which will lead to revenue plus you will more then likely have said rabid fan base throwing money at you because they love that you are siding with CIG.

So yes money totally plays into the equation and sets the bias. 

MaxBacon

Kefo said:

No because the CIG knights will try to crucify you to your channel and probably stop watching right after and you’d lose revenue. 

However if you take CIG’s side and your video is all about how the judge fucked up or how Cryteks lawyers are just reaching for anything then you will have an already rabid fan base watching your videos which will lead to revenue plus you will more then likely have said rabid fan base throwing money at you because they love that you are siding with CIG.

So yes money totally plays into the equation and sets the bias. 

Oh lol, every piece of controversy and drama about SC gets high views, not the opposite, just see the media outlets always with negative press on SC always trending.

I'm not picking a side and saying "oh his opinion is the right opinion", I'm just seeing the informed views we have around on the matter. And the fact is, most of the views given on this whole lawsuit from informed people, do overall favor CIG and not Crytek in multiple points... Even the article you linked before of not being biased that also reviewed the case, but now they're biased?! hmmm!

MadFrenchie

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

That's true, for an outsider's unbiased professional opinion, I'd recommend searching for articles where a reporter reached out to, say, a law professor specializing in the area to ask their take.  That's where you normally get the unbiased "here's what I see from the details we know" kind of thing.  YouTube pulls money into the equation, which biases pretty much everyone in some way.

You talk that the money sets the bias, I am wondering how exactly would you make more or less money by "siding" with Crytek or CIG? Because you're implying the money factor here leads to bias but I am figuring out this argument of yours.

Wouldn't side with Crytek generate them more money for one Youtuber at that? If they were to state that Crytek has this strong case that will destroy CIG in court would be the best type of clickbait.

Point being, if they had made a video saying "Well, I could see the case going this way, but I could see these issues warranting more scrutiny, but the end result depends upon what's found in discovery," isn't going to garner a lot of interest because it isn't exciting enough.  Taking a side and making a big deal out of how one side is being incredibly frivolous and how awful their case is (or, more apropos, how a judge "fucked up") and such generates much stronger emotional reactions from viewers.  That's better for the clicks and comments.

MaxBacon

MadFrenchie said:

Point being, if they had made a video saying "Well, I could see the case going this way, but I could see these issues warranting more scrutiny, but the end result depends upon what's found in discovery," isn't going to garner a lot of interest because it isn't exciting enough.  Taking a side and making a big deal out of how one side is being incredibly frivolous and how awful their case is (or, more apropos, how a judge "fucked up") and such generates much stronger emotional reactions from viewers.  That's better for the clicks and comments.

But what Leonard French did on the follow up when he already considered Crytek and CIG responses, he did exactly that, his takes give credit to CIG in some, to Crytek in others, but most of it he puts it to depend on discovery if there is merit to the accusation or not. Not as interesting indeed, but that's where he left the case after the argumentation presented for and against the MtD.

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

MadFrenchie said:

Point being, if they had made a video saying "Well, I could see the case going this way, but I could see these issues warranting more scrutiny, but the end result depends upon what's found in discovery," isn't going to garner a lot of interest because it isn't exciting enough.  Taking a side and making a big deal out of how one side is being incredibly frivolous and how awful their case is (or, more apropos, how a judge "fucked up") and such generates much stronger emotional reactions from viewers.  That's better for the clicks and comments.

But what Leonard French did on the follow up when he already considered Crytek and CIG responses, he did exactly that, his takes give credit to CIG in some, to Crytek in others, but most of it he puts it to depend on discovery if there is merit to the accusation or not.

Didn’t he first make a video about how it’s a slam dunk for CIG and then later on when he saw how others were getting ripped apart he decided to tone back his response?

Kefo

MaxBacon said:

Kefo said:

No because the CIG knights will try to crucify you to your channel and probably stop watching right after and you’d lose revenue. 

However if you take CIG’s side and your video is all about how the judge fucked up or how Cryteks lawyers are just reaching for anything then you will have an already rabid fan base watching your videos which will lead to revenue plus you will more then likely have said rabid fan base throwing money at you because they love that you are siding with CIG.

So yes money totally plays into the equation and sets the bias. 

Oh lol, every piece of controversy and drama about SC gets high views, not the opposite, just see the media outlets always with negative press on SC always trending.

I'm not picking a side and saying "oh his opinion is the right opinion", I'm just seeing the informed views we have around on the matter. And the fact is, most of the views given on this whole lawsuit from informed people, do overall favor CIG and not Crytek in multiple points... Even the article you linked before of not being biased that also reviewed the case, but now they're biased?! hmmm!

I’m starting to think you’re just picking random sentences from the CIG Defense handbook and cobbling them together because you’re not making a lot of sense in your reply to me