Jim Sterling in court.

[SweetShark]

snip

Great post my friend.

The only thing I can add is I think Jim wanted to cover his mistake about the stolen art by changing his original article.
So this proves that even he acknowledge that he made a mistake, he just "correct" it and move on without adressing it.
This also maybe is the "trigger" which could allow this case go in court: Jim caused damage to DigiHom and doesn't admit his mistake openly.

 

[SweetShark]

Also, for some reason, the Romine's GFM page has an update where they explain that they...spent 70 or so dollars on paper and binder clips. Haven't earned any more money, though. And it appears they somehow disabled comments a while ago.

Seriously? Was it so important to update their status to tell us how many cash paid to get papers and clips?
Do they want to tell us that they are so broke they can afford to pay for paper?

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

The reasoning behind yesterday's request to dismiss the case seems to be on a couple of points. I'm not a US citizen and I sure as hell am not familiar with legal-ese... so pinch of salt time... but my impressions is that Jim's lawyers are saying that even if everything Digital Homicide had submitted were proven to be factually true, that still doesn't constitute libel within the definition used by the court (Failure to State a Claim). Their dismissal request also included "Lack of Standing" and "Lack of Personal Jurisdiction".

That's probably right. I haven't been able to access/read the dismissal request from Sterling's team, but I've read the amended complaints from Romine, and quite frankly, they are a goddamn clusterf*ck (which is not a surprise because Romine is representing himself). Here are some of the records, in case anyone is interested: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2y7venbbn/arizona-district-court/romine-v-stanton/

Based on a bit of reading last night, it seems that opinion in US libel doesn't matter, especially since bloggers were granted the same legal protections as large media organisations. It only counts if a person saying a provably false statement can be shown to have said it knowing it was false and with the intent of causing harm.

Not exactly. In the U.S., when it comes to public figures (celebrities, elected officials, etc.), to prove libel you must prove that the offending party published false statements with "malice," which means he or she published the info knowing it was false or demonstrated a complete disregard for the truth. But for non-public figures, U.S. law does not require you to prove malice, so the threshold is much lower. In other words, a private citizen who is not a public figure can successfully sue a reporter or critic for published false information.

But here's where it gets complicated -- there are also "limited purpose public figures" or "involuntary public figures" where someone has either thrust his or herself into a particular controversy or media event or been thrust into it against their will (see the case of Oliver Sipple and the assassination attempt on Gerald Ford, it's a fascinating case). You could argue (and I would) that Romine and Digital Homicide have courted media attention with some of their public quarrels with Sterling. Thus, they may serve as a limited purpose public figure. And in that case, the threshold is much, much higher to prove libel, and it would significantly weaken Romine's already shaky case.

 

[Fsyco]

The reasoning behind yesterday's request to dismiss the case seems to be on a couple of points. I'm not a US citizen and I sure as hell am not familiar with legal-ese... so pinch of salt time... but my impressions is that Jim's lawyers are saying that even if everything Digital Homicide had submitted were proven to be factually true, that still doesn't constitute libel within the definition used by the court (Failure to State a Claim). Their dismissal request also included "Lack of Standing" and "Lack of Personal Jurisdiction".

The lack of personal jurisdiction is a pretty obvious one (and I totally called it). Internet sales aren't typically enough to establish personal jurisdiction across state lines. They'd have to show that Jim did some kind of "directed" business in Arizona (IE, worked closely with people in Arizona, or sell things through Arizona retailers). Pretty sure this will get dismissed on those grounds.

A lot of Digital Homicides argument seems to be that Jim Sterling went after them using the name "ECC Games" and stealing art assets. The art asset thing is easier to prove false, since they had Shutterstock receipts for that art. The ECC Games thing is murkier, since whilst their Steam ID was "ECC Games" and subsequently they changed it to avoid confusion, the icon next to the name always said "Every Click Counts" (I checked on archive.org). They argue that they're entitled to trade under any name they like and that isn't Jim's place to brand them as dishonest or judge "ECC Games" of Poland to be the "real" ECC games. Especially since Jim himself isn't trading under his given legal name.

I haven't seen every piece of evidence. But my memory is that mention of "ECC Games" was in the larger context of Digital Homicide using multiple trading names on Steam, each separate to the other. It got a special mention because the Polish firm contacted him and said they were planning legal action (which they subsequently withdrew, I believe). But Jim only reported their contact and what they told him. It did fit the narrative he was telling though, that DH obfuscating their involvement in so many low quality titles and Valve's infrastructure did nothing to make such obfuscation difficult. Though he did seem to give credence to the polish firm being the "real" ECC games.

The ECC thing is kind of weird in general. All Jim said was that "Another ECC games is possibly in trouble, and they're threatening legal action." These are both statements that, to Jim's (and my) knowledge were true. The Polish ECC games was already trading internationally with that name, and considering that it caused consumer confusion, the "real" ECC could easily make a case for trademark infringement. Jim never accused them of an actual crime, and it would be on them to show that their behavior on Steam Greenlight wasn't shady (and I'm fairly certain the judge would think it shady).

There's something interesting I've been wondering in regards to the claims of art theft. Would DigiHom have to show that the damage to their reputation was caused directly and solely by Jim's article, and not by their own shitty behavior? They certainly did steal art in the past. Like, if a rumor was circulating that Jared Fogle had molested another kid, someone reprinted that rumor in an article, and Jared sued for libel claiming that it hurt his reputation, would that article be solely responsible to damages to his reputation?

Also, for some reason, the Romine's GFM page has an update where they explain that they...spent 70 or so dollars on paper and binder clips. Haven't earned any more money, though. And it appears they somehow disabled comments a while ago.

Seriously? Was it so important to update their status to tell us how many cash paid to get papers and clips?
Do they want to tell us that they are so broke they can afford to pay for paper?

I think they're desperate for money. They haven't gotten anything beyond the $225 they already had.

Incidentally, according to the amended complaint they filed, they now want $12.5 MILLION . And the reason its 77 pages appears to be that it contained alot of new text as well as old, stricken text from the original complaint.

 

[Elwes]

The lack of personal jurisdiction is a pretty obvious one (and I totally called it). Internet sales aren't typically enough to establish personal jurisdiction across state lines. They'd have to show that Jim did some kind of "directed" business in Arizona (IE, worked closely with people in Arizona, or sell things through Arizona retailers). Pretty sure this will get dismissed on those grounds.

Aye.

I just read the paperwork, which my summary would be "I don't personally sell any product in Arizona or anywhere else. I don't specifically ask anyone in Arizona to send me money. I am financed by roughly 4,000 donations per month which come from people worldwide. My video stats don't show any obvious viewer spikes in Arizona. I don't live in Arizona. I have never even been to Arizona. The plaintiff lives there though.".

I'd also missed the "Digital Homicide Studios" is a limited company. Jim said things about DHS, not Mr Romine. But the case has been raised by Mr Romine, not DHS. So there's another reason why the case can be dismissed.

Overall, I'm hoping the judge makes things explicitly clear if things go against Mr Romine regarding what is and is not libel. Not least so he's not tempted to restart things in a different state and filing as DHS rather than himself. He's been put in a spotlight, albeit for valid reasons. But he's no worse than many others who are outside the spotlight. His only real problem has been he's taken it all a bit to heart, and I can understand why. His games might deserve not to sell well, but he doesn't personally deserve .

[hr]

Seriously? Was it so important to update their status to tell us how many cash paid to get papers and clips? [...]

I think they're desperate for money. They haven't gotten anything beyond the $225 they already had. [...]

I think he's just trying to be completely up front about where the $225 is being spent. To avoid future accusations that he spent it all at Pizza Hut or something.

[hr]

Incidentally, according to the amended complaint they filed, they now want $12.5 MILLION .

It's jumped around a bit throughout.

• 
  [li]Mar-04 - Asked for $10.7 million.[/li]
  [li]Apr-13 - Asked for $15.4 million.[/li]
  [li]Apr-27 - Asked for $12.5 million.[/li]

[hr]

[...] And the reason its 77 pages appears to be that it contained a lot of new text as well as old [...]

I presume that's a legal requirement and Digital Homicide do make note of it in their updated filing as Redlining [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_comparison].
Short version. They can't just change the wording and re-file it. They have to provide a strike-through copy so that anything they are removing is made clear.

It should be noted that the resubmitted complaint on the 27th of April was only 31 pages, including all the striking out. The attachments (evidence and signed declarations for each piece of evidence) are 46 pages. Hence the 77.

However Jim's lawyer's have filed a motion basically saying "you can pretty much ignore the request to allow that amended complaint, since we're pretty sure you're going to throw the case out".

 

[Fsyco]

Overall, I'm hoping the judge makes things explicitly clear if things go against Mr Romine regarding what is and is not libel. Not least so he's not tempted to restart things in a different state and filing as DHS rather than himself. He's been put in a spotlight, albeit for valid reasons. But he's no worse than many others who are outside the spotlight. His only real problem has been he's taken it all a bit to heart, and I can understand why. His games might deserve not to sell well, but he doesn't personally deserve .

Filing in a different state is a logistical nightmare, though. Their only other option is to sue in Mississippi, which would require them to:
1) Physically travel to Mississippi and stay in Mississippi for the duration of the trial (or at the very least for the occasional court appearance) and given their financial woes and family obligations, I don't see this being viable.
2) Either hire a lawyer in Mississippi (and they already can't hire a lawyer in their own state) or take even more time to research local procedures and laws in Mississippi. IE, they might want the paperwork done differently, definition of libel might be different, etc.
They might want to do all that given their single-minded, narcissistic rage, but it's just not going to be feasible.

 

[Reed Spacer]

Overall, I'm hoping the judge makes things explicitly clear if things go against Mr Romine regarding what is and is not libel. Not least so he's not tempted to restart things in a different state and filing as DHS rather than himself. He's been put in a spotlight, albeit for valid reasons. But he's no worse than many others who are outside the spotlight. His only real problem has been he's taken it all a bit to heart, and I can understand why. His games might deserve not to sell well, but he doesn't personally deserve .

Yeah, he does. He brought this on himself. I'm honestly curious as to how much deeper a hole he can dig, because at this point he must be nearing the Earth's core.

 

[Fsyco]

Just read through the motion to dismiss. I don't think I've ever felt so pumped reading a legal document. It's much better put together than Romine's thing. (Although I did spot a few typos and errors, such as referring to "The Slaughterhouse Grounds" and claiming that "Defendant has failed to state a claim").

From my understanding, they want the case dismissed for the following reasons:
1) Jim's statements were directed at Digital Homicide and not James Romine, so the lawsuit would have to be filed on behalf of DH.
2) Arizona has no jurisdiction over Jim.
3) None of the things that Jim said actually constitute libel.

Those all sound pretty good, although I do remember him referring to the "Romine Brothers" a few times instead of "Digital Homicide". Pretty sure this will quickly be dismissed though.

 

[Laughing Man]

Telling you the Jimquistion on DH when this thing is over and done with is going to be something to watch.

 

[Reed Spacer]

Telling you the Jimquistion on DH when this thing is over and done with is going to be something to watch.

I don't see the point; they've already done the equivalent of webcam themselves slitting their wrists and then posting it online. They're essentially the joke of the internet and have pretty much destroyed any and all credibility they had or would have.

 

[Laughing Man]

I don't see the point; they've already done the equivalent of webcam themselves slitting their wrists and then posting it online. They're essentially the joke of the internet and have pretty much destroyed any and all credibility they had or would have.

True but this IS Jim Sterling after all and if anything we all know he does love it when he's right and he loves to make a show of things especially if those two factors come together so yeah kinda looking forward to it.

 

[Elwes]

True but this IS Jim Sterling after all and if anything we all know he does love it when he's right [...]

Aye, but he does like to take the high ground too. In this case, I still hope the high ground is to accept success gracefully and be the better man.

I said it earlier in the thread, but I personally would like to see a Jimquisition where any "win" in the case is a footnote or a brief mention at the start, a statement of fact before moving on - but the rest of the episode is about the situation as a whole and about Steam and the failures of the Early Access program to deliver quality games (even if they are ludicrously cheap). Why Steam promotes a business model where there's no incentive to actually finish the game once all the money comes in up front and sales dwindle over time. Or how repeated game failures are undermining consumer confidence (or why it isn't). Why things got out of all proportion and what other small developers can do right to avoid stuff like this.

Yes, here's a guy playing the system. But the system lets him and rewards him, and let's be honest he's hardly alone. Yes, he's publishing games using multiple steam accounts - but there's nothing illegal about that. Yes, he used the name "ECC Games" - but trading names don't have to unique per planet, continent, country or even region.

At the end of the day, kicking the guy while he's down would be just cruel. Let him just fade back into the background, stop buying his games and try to encourage him to write good games rather than bad ones without singling him out.

Or... coming at it from a different direction... How about we treat James Romine as being as inconsequential and irrelevant as he deserves? A tiny part of a much more interesting conversation, who is best forgotten rather than given even one more second in the spotlight.

Let's not make the story about James Romine.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
-Eleanor Roosevelt

 

[Fsyco]

Let's not make the story about James Romine.

Thing is, this story and the Romine brothers' narcissism are inseparable. Sure, plenty of people game the system, put out shitty products, and engage in overall shady behavior on Steam, but these two are the only ones to escalate things like this. Every other "spurious DMCA takedown of a famous YTer's video" case was basically the video being taken down, the developers say something really stupid afterwards, then afterwards they go away (See: Day One: Gary's Incident, Guise of the Wolf, Island Light, and Skateman Intense Rescue). Jim's pointed out shady shit from plenty of other developers, and the most those devs usually do is ***** about it on the Steam forums. The Romines are the only ones that have tried suing him over it, and you wouldn't file a lawsuit this shaky without some serious delusions of grandeur.

I think the more relevant issue is how indie developers, unrestrained by PR departments and managers, are much more vulnerable to dysfunctional personalities. If someone had told these two to just keep their heads down and not try picking a fight with Jim, nobody would care about them. But there's multiple stories of indie devs having meltdowns, making personal attacks, and even personally harassing reviewers over the phone (or at least, the Hydrophobia devs did that last one), because there's no one around to tell them how to behave. Big companies don't do that, because they know how bad it looks.

 

[Elwes]

Thing is, this story and the Romine brothers' narcissism are inseparable. [...]

I guess.

At the end of the day, Jim is going to do what Jim thinks is appropriate and will make him the most money. Then people will either think better or worse of him and his income will be affected accordingly.
Realistically, there's no reason why Jim couldn't already have the full Jimquisition already recorded, uploaded and flagged as a private video right now, ready to go once the judge makes a final decision.

[...] the video being taken down, the developers say something really stupid afterwards, then afterwards they go away

But the solution can't be to name and shame each developer and/or game in turn.

I'd rather spend time on whatever will stop the next developer. From my perspective, the easiest attitudes to change are those of customers. If we stop buying, bad, unfinished games - then the lack of income will sort out all the other problems. Because honestly, I don't see opportunistic developers or apathetic retailers changing their attitudes while the money is still rolling in.

 

[Fsyco]

I'd rather spend time on whatever will stop the next developer. From my perspective, the easiest attitudes to change are those of customers. If we stop buying, bad, unfinished games - then the lack of income will sort out all the other problems. Because honestly, I don't see opportunistic developers or apathetic retailers changing their attitudes while the money is still rolling in.

Indie dev meltdowns were around before the Steam "opened the floodgates", as it were, and sometimes have happened with devs whose games aren't complete garbage. Fez was an indie darling, and that never stopped Phil Fish. The only thing that's going to curb meltdowns and bad behavior is a sudden influx of freelance PR specialists, and even then the developers would have to be willing to hire and listen to them.

Changing customer attitudes is notoriously difficult, because people are irrational and don't think logically. The only way to fix Steam is for Valve to suddenly clamp down on quality control, and and just not sell shitty garbage on its storefront. Although I've heard that alot of these shit games don't sell terribly well, because voting for something on Greenlight doesn't mean you're comitted to actually buying it. Valve would also have to spend alot more money for QA people on Steam, and given their recent handling of the platform, it seems that they're woefully understaffed and unequipped to handle it.

 

[Fsyco]

Taking another look through the MTD, and I noticed that Jim's lawyers have requested an oral argument. Anyone know why they would do that? I assume that only Jim's lawyers have to show up, and not Jim himself, but does this also mean that Romine has to show up to argue too, since he's pro se? That's clever, if a bit underhanded, since that would basically force Romine to embarrass himself in front of the judge. Otherwise, I have no idea why they'd want to have to go to Arizona to deal with this.

 

[FalloutJack]

Taking another look through the MTD, and I noticed that Jim's lawyers have requested an oral argument. Anyone know why they would do that? I assume that only Jim's lawyers have to show up, and not Jim himself, but does this also mean that Romine has to show up to argue too, since he's pro se? That's clever, if a bit underhanded, since that would basically force Romine to embarrass himself in front of the judge. Otherwise, I have no idea why they'd want to have to go to Arizona to deal with this.

My guess would be exactly as you said: Let the idiots do the talking, ask the judge if anymore time-wasting will be necessary, and then call it a day.

 

[KoalaMan412]

So apparently someone donated $200 today on their gofundme page...

 

[Fsyco]

So apparently someone donated $200 today on their gofundme page...

Considering that their last donation was about a month ago, that's a wee bit suspicious. They might be re-priming the tip jar to give the illusion that people are still donating to them. Or maybe someone was just feeling generous.

An additional $200 is probably not gonna get them much, though, especially since their case is probably about to get thrown out. Might cover some of the fees to refile, if they decide to do that.

 

[Fsyco]

Update time, everyone!

The judge granted Jim's Motion for Excess Pages,so his Motion to Dismiss is now officially filed (although it looks like it got broken up into 3 separate motions). Romine has also filed a response to that motion, which I'd love to get my hands on. No idea what his rebuttal would be other than "Nuh-uh! We totes have jurisdiction!" (although he might have a leg to stand on with "He filed paperwork with us and therefore consented to jurisdiction"), "I AM the LLC!", and/or "Nuh-uh! That is totes libel! For realsies! Because it hurt my feelings, and therefore caused me injury." Whatever it is, I hope it tops the "Fair use has to be fair" argument.

It also appears that Romine scrambled at the last minute to file a Motion for Excess Pages after the fact to get his amended complaint through.