Statement is from https://xcancel.com/OriginalFunko/status/1866255848366039468#m
From: https://xcancel.com/BrandShieldltd/status/1866161489528180988#m
Edit, bonus panel! What scum.
You must log in or register to comment.
“Funko did not request a takedown of the @itchio platform.”
Man, I fucking hate corpo-speak like this.
Yes, you didn’t personally make the request against itchio… But you hired this company to enforce “brand protection” and that’s what they did. So you did actually request the takedown, but you just did so by authorizing another party to make such requests on your behalf.
This is like a military General saying “hey I didn’t commit any warcrimes, I just gave the orders to my men to commit warcrimes!”
Translation: “we didn’t think this predatory behavior would affect our bottom line, and we deeply regret that it has.”
deleted by creator
2025: the REAL year of Luigi.
Hey, so if BrandShield is being honest, what’s Itch’s registrar? What do they have to say? 🍿 This keeps getting deeper.
Why ask the registrar to take down a subdomain of a website?
Those subdomains are not managed or controlled by the registrar, so all the registrar can do is either take down the entire domain or ask their client to take down the subdomain. In this case they asked their client, who took down the subdomain, after which the registrar took down the domain anyhow :D
For a single isolated offence, Brandshield’s first action should have been to report the copyright infringement to itch.io and ask for a takedown of that content, instead they went directly to the registrar and falsely claimed that itch.io was a fraud & phishing site. I suspect that they falsely claim that it’s about phishing and fraud, because otherwise registrars will not take down the site unless there is systematic copyright infringement (like a torrent site). And I suspect that brandshield goes directly to the registrar with their complaint, since that is easier to automate than finding the right contact info on a website.
So my take is that: The registrar was in the wrong for taking down the domain after itch.io removed the problematic subdomain. Brandshield is scum. And Funko is in the wrong for using brandshield.
No real need for further answers from itch.io, nothing new has come to light.
Edit: while under the shower I realized that Brandshield’s posts do contain some kind of news: Brandshield does not deny having used fraud & phishing as reason for the takedown request, thereby confirming that they did. Before we just had itch.io’s retelling of the events, which might have been a misrepresentation by itch.io or due to a cock-up by the registrar, but because of the lack of denial by brandshield, we now have confirmation that it did happen like itch.io said.
Those subdomains are not managed or controlled by the registrar
I might be getting the terminology wrong, I’ve not had to work too closely with the specifics of subdomains in my career, lol. But you can definitely have
blah.itch.iopoints to a different IP thanitch.ioand that’s done through DNS. So if they suspectedblah.itch.ioto be a phishing site imitating Funko’s site, it makes sense that they’d report it to the people controlling that.And yeah, it looks like Itch does use sub domains for user pages instead of URL paths. https://xk.itch.io/ So if some user’s page was trying to imitate Funk’s site then I could see this line of thought. I’d need to see the page that was supposedly imitating and what it was imitating to really make a judgement call though.
If it had been phishing, then going to the registrar would have been the right call, because you want to take that down asap. But according to itch.io it wasn’t, instead it was a a real fansite that was linking to the real website of funko’s game (according to itch.io). Something which most media companies allow since it’s basically free publicity and goodwill, but if they did want it taken down for copyright reasons, then a DMCA takedown request send to itch.io would have been the correct first action.
In the response statement by Brandshield, Brandshield does not deny having send a takedown request for phishing to the registrar (confirming that they did), nor do they dispute itch.io’s statement that it wasn’t a phishing site (confirming that they know that it wasn’t), instead they only speak about “infringement”.
So now we know that Brandshield is knowingly making false accusations that have potentially serious consequences for their victims. And it’s not going to be the first time that they’ve done this, but even this high publicity case will probably not have any legal consequences for brandshield, so it looks like they will continue getting away with it. Unfortunately they’re not alone, it often seems like the entire DMCA industry is rotten.
So now we know that Brandshield is knowingly making false accusations that have potentially serious consequences for their victims.
They said their platform is “AI driven” which could very easily imply this was an automated process with no human making a decision. It’s still bad, but a different kind of bad than “knowingly” making a decision.
You can’t create an automated machine, let it run loose without supervision and then claim to not be responsible for what the machine does.
Maybe just maybe this was the very first instance of their ai malfunctioning (which I don’t believe for a second), in which case the correct response of Brandshield would have been to announce that they would temporarily suspend the activities of this particular program & promise to implement improvements so that it would not happen again. Brandshield has done neither of these, which tells me that it’s not the first time and also that Brandshield has no intention of preventing it from happening again in the future.
I’m not trying to exonerate them of any blame, I’m just saying “knowingly” implies a human looking at something and making a decision as opposed to a machine making a mistake.
I made an automaton. I set the parameters in such a way that there is a large variability of actions that my automaton can take. My parameters do not pre-empt my automaton from taking certain illegal actions. I set my automaton loose. After some time it turns out that my automaton has taken an illegal action against a specific person. Did I know that my automaton was going to commit a illegal action against that specific person? No, I did not. Did I know that my automaton was sooner or later going to commit certain illegal actions? Yes I did, because those actions are within the parameters of the automaton. I know my automaton is capable of doing illegal actions and given enough incidences there is an absolute certainty that it will do those illegal actions. I do not need to interact with my automaton in any way to know that some of it’s actions will be illegal.
Registrar is 1API.NET which uses Verisign.
DNS is currently configured to cloudflare (maybe as a result of this fubar scenario?). blah.itch.io would be pointed in DNS not from the TLD registrar in this scenario.
Contacting itch.io directly would be the first step long before going the registrar route as they obviously manage DNS on their end and not the registrar end.
The problem here is that’s a weird response for them to go straight to the registrar.
If somebody posts copyrighted content on YouTube the offended party goes to YouTube don’t ask the registrar to do anything. Contacting the registrar is the last resort not the first step.
How much you want to bet that response was AI generated?
Seriously, the way it explains things and the repetition reek of ChatGPT
All the support to Itch.io’s mom
Corporate doing corporate shit. And then asking why people hate corporations and their CEOs.
People used to think so highly of CEOs, that they must be doing something right if they got to where they are. They must be smarter and have all the answers.
Now people are realizing CEOs are just rich scumbags.
Yep, I’m sure most of them just bought their positions there to have power over society.
You just know that their “AI driven platform” is a call to google for the brand names they’re “protecting” followed by takedown requests issued to the registered email followed by one to the registrar for every domain found.
We need a new internet because this one is fucked.
Where’s Rache Bartmoss when you need em?
If only we had a few more Luigi, these corpo-shit would think twice
They really like to show off how much power they have and how self defense is, indeed, justified.
They do and undo like there’s no consequences whatsoever.
They always talk about how giving coverage leads to copycats. Typically that has meant me getting pissed at the over coverage of mass shootings, but now I’m sitting here waiting like… Okay? Any day now? Maybe not.
I “love” how they very carefully avoid making any apology whatsoever.
Enlightenment me but I think it’s because of legal reasons? Can an apology be used as pleading guilty?
IANAL but I do believe in some places not only is an apology and admission of guilt but it can also be used against you
Not in Canada though otherwise everybody would be in prison all of the time.
Wdym by I ANAL? Good for you?
I am not a lawyer but I suspect it’s an initialism
Legit question. Am I dumb for not understanding it?
I Am Not A Lawyer
I got it thanks. I meant in the first try. Is it a commonly used acronym or I was supposed to decrypt it?
They requested a takedown before talking to the website owners? That’s such a hostile move
DMCA used to be used very very rarely because it carries(carried?) significant penalties for using it like a club. Now it’s just being used like a club and it’s quite obvious there’s no penalty.
This wasn’t even DMCA. AI sent the takedown notice to the domain registrar and labelled the fan game sub domain a *phishing/scam" website Erroneously of course with no oversight from any of the three offending parties. Funko, Shield, and the registrar who didn’t inform itch at all, automatically took down the site, AND ignored communication attempts from itch at first when they found out, according to their BlueSky profile. Massive incompetent dumpster fire.
I don’t believe that it was a malicious misuse. Most likely some fuckwit moron at Funko or Brandshield didn’t understand the difference between the hosting platform and the registrar and sent the takedown request to the wrong place out of negligence.It wasn’t even a DMCA request.
nobody is this stupid
Doesn’t matter, compensation is in order.
If a company uses tools that act poorly, or does not invest in training staff appropriately, it is a decision they make to optimize their business.
When they fail, they should have to learn what the costs of those mistakes are. A tweet is not enough.
Sure, I don’t disagree, that’s not what I’m saying. All three offending parties could/should be held responsible, depending on how the takedown request was delivered.
Using AI driven software is willful negligence. Software can’t take responsibility so the human operating it needs to take responsibility for the consequences of it. They took down the entire thing they need to face consequences. The hosting provider should also face consequences for overly broad responses to take down requests.
Using AI driven software is willful negligence.
Not necessarily. Neural nets are excellent at fuzzy matching tasks and make for great filters – but nothing more. If you hook one up to a crawler you get a fairly effective way of identifying websites that match certain criteria. You can then have people review those matches to see if infringement happened. It’s basically a glorified search tool.
Of course if you skip the review step you’re doing the equivalent of running a Google search for your brand name and DMCAing all of the search results. That would be negligent.
There is no indication that Funko/BrandShield did that, however. They say that infringing content was found and we have strong indications that a now-deleted Itch project did contain official screenshots of Funko Fusion so the infringement threshold might have been met. Their takedown request was apparently made in good faith.
Now, why the entire domain was taken down, that is the question. It might be a miscommunication or they might’ve mailed the hosting provider directly. I can imagine everything from human error to faulty processes as the root cause here. What I don’t believe is that they made a high-level decision to nuke Itch.
Who needs to face the consequences depends on who screwed up here. For now we’ll have to make do with both Funko and BrandShield taking a PR hit.
Now, why the entire domain was taken down, that is the question.
They emailed their registrar. Registrar deals only with domains. It’s like telling asassin to deal with person and then act surprised after person was killed.
They didnt issue a DMCA takedown request, which has a legally prescribed back and forth for removing copyrighted, or assumed copyrighted material.
They instead told the registar itch.io was committing phishing/fraud crimes. The registar clearly knee jerked on being told the domain was engaged in illegal acts, but it was Funko and their vendor Brandshield that lied about that in the first place.
Yes, I didn’t know about the fraud allegation when I posted. That definitely shouldn’t have happened. Funko should’ve known better than to pull shit like that and it’ll be interesting to see if Itch sues over this.
My point about AI tools remains, though.
Except you wouldn’t ever dare build any kind of automated system for fear of this exact situation. Remove the fear part and financially you wouldn’t NOT build this system.
Exactly, they know how often their AI fails and they understand the damages you incur from fake phishing accusations. They combined the two, and used exploits to make the registrar panic.
Yeah i jumped to the conclusion, read the article and kept the additional incorrect info in my premise.
I’m just going to post this comment to this thread as well, since this is newer. Classic shifting of blame and no one taking responsibility for scummy actions.
Fun fact: Funko’s current CEO is the ex-president of Wizards of the Coast!
Why is this relevant? Well, under her leadership, WotC sent pinkerton agents to someone’s home to threaten them because they got some Magic the Gathering cards early. She said things like Dungeons & Dragons players were under-monetised, pushing to make the Table Top game more like a microtransaction-filled video game, and helped with the OGL scandal.
The OGL, for anyone unfamiliar, was an Open Gaming License WotC had for years with D&D 3rd party creators. It allowed certain things to be created using D&D mechanics and lore by anyone that followed its guidelines and allowances. A couple years ago, WotC tried to change that so they would make more money off of people trying to create things for D&D - to profit off of indie creators passionate about the game. There was a huge backlash, and they eventually went back on this decision.
All this to say, you can see what kind of leader the current Funko CEO is, and what’s happening with itch isn’t surprising to me.
We need to compile a list of shitty executives for boycotting purposes. No more “this company did a bad thing”. No. We need exactly this, with “this is David Davidson, who led the enshittification of ABC, Inc”
It needs to be a document, a wiki, of exactly the shitty things those people did so that businesses will have monetary reasons to want to avoid shitty executives.
Let’s help those poor, poor companies from being victimized by those awful greedy people. The poor things.
Peter Molyneux is going to require an entire volume bound in leather at this right
Fucking Pinkertons? That’s a company who can use a visit from Luigi.
Literally the company that RDR2 portrays as the bad guys, that sued the makers of the game and lost because they objectively ARE the bad guys.
They have also had over a century to rename themselves and haven’t, which means they want the reputation the name has.
If you had a business that boiled down to “corporate mercenary” don’t you think it would be incredibly convenient to have a reputation as a villainous bulldog?
There are very few companies who get to pretend they don’t give a flying shit about people. This is one who will thrive on that reputation. Pinkertons and whatever Blackwater is now.
There’s a difference between “villainous bulldog” and “association with them may get you shot in parts of america” (Appalachia IIRC)
Unfortunately, the swing to the right and the rise of shit like “Blue Lives Matter” has changed this in some places. When I was in the western part of Virginia for school, there was a local car dealership called “Pinkerton” and I saw their dealership license plate frames and emblem on a LOT of cars in the area. Many of those cars also had the Gadsden vanity plates and a bunch of blue lives matter, trump, etc. stickers on them.
And yet Blackwater has renamed itself again and again.
Apparently there is a “whoops, too much” level of villainy, even for villain factories.
I think Blackwater renamed to avoid tarnishing whoever was hiring them, not because they themselves disliked their reputation. If their employment wasn’t at the mercy of elected officials who have to care about optics, I bet they’d still be parading around their old name with pride.
It’s been decades and the first name that pops into my head when someone says ‘PMC’ is still ‘Blackwater’. Do you have any idea how much war crime they’ll need to do to get back that level of brand recognition?
That’s quite telling, thanks for sharing.
Name the CEO. Image too, or wiki link.
Let’s stop letting scummy people hide behind brands and companies.
Might as well add those details to your comment.
Cynthia Williams
Hell yeah! Thank you. I would have but was on spotty mobile
Brand protection partners is a much friendlier way to say bloodsucking lawyers.
Some are useful. It’s not uncommon for scammers to throw up copies of legitimate sites, but hosting malware etc. Having tried to deal with Google, GoDaddy-et-al I can attest that their fucks given about such things is minimal but one of these companies can get offending sites taken down pretty quick.
The problem is when they don’t do due-diligence (and don’t face reasonable consequences for failing in said diligence) and then shit like this happens
Funko: We would like to apologise for being caught in the act, we will strive to better hide our asshole tactics next time, the person responsible for us getting caught has been reprimanded with 2 weeks paid time off.
$100 says they wouldn’t have said shit even if this was a smaller platform than itch and people didn’t basically put them on blast. Funko is just trying damage control now that their customers are calling foul. I seriously hope people stop buying these things as a punishment to this company using shitty AI and not actually apologizing, but I know thats wishful thinking.
I for one promise to never buy another Funko product. I never have, but I never will either.
Why is it so hard just to say “this was not out intention, we recognize it was bad, and we are sorry.”
There’s a lot of words here for a non-apology.
Why do a decent thing when you have money on your side
Lawsuit liability.
It so so pisses me off when these companies say shit like “thank you for sharing in our passion for creativity”
It’s basically saying “thank you for agreeing with us”, which I don’t.
At this point you just know that any company saying something like that is abusive, doesn’t give a shit and just want to pretend to be respectable.
You can taste celophane in their words
You can taste AI in their words.
PR department is meat AI
Corpo-speak in general is absolutely frustrating to read.
The best thing about rising up in the corporate world is the increased salary. But the worst thing is the fact that these idiots start talking to you like that in person.
We know we’ve caused itch and the game developers financial losses, but be assured that we have contacted them to offer our biggest, most sincere apologies.
Fuck them. Time to sue.
