Devblog: Interim Statement on Brisc Rubal Follow-up Investigation

csm
official
devblog
(Priux Brasil) #83

They are not young teenagers, they are adults and have no right to subject people to ridicule. They should know the least about suspicions, truths and lies, that is, the least of the basics to make a responsible assessment of the facts and to meet justice.
I will be doubly disappointed with the possibility of a turnaround on such an important issue, but it profoundly undermines the credibility of the members of this company.

(Lugburz) #85

Lets not actually forget one very important thing.

None of us actually know if he can be proven guilty or not; if guilty any lawyer is going to have a hard time bringing up a defamation case.

The guy posting above is clearly batshit crazy.

4 Likes
(Wompie) #86

I believe the client server resides in USA but could be wrong on that.

(Arrendis) #87

If guilty, that’s true. If not guilty… well, I’ve heard he’s got himself an Icelandic lawyer, so I guess he’s good to go.

(Wompie) #88

That lawyer? hafthor bjornsson.

2 Likes
(Lugburz) #89

lololol jesus

I must say this is all rather amusing to me tbvh.

Like, what does he hope to actually achieve?

(Arrendis) #90

The client is the iteration of software running on your machine. That has no bearing on anything. The action taken happened in Iceland. The statement was released in Iceland. The ban is nothing. The ban isn’t actionable. The only thing that might have legal exposure is the public statement.

(Arrendis) #91

Probably nothing more than defending his name and professional reputation, since mishandling of confidential information would seriously hurt his livelihood after this got splashed around in Variety.

It’s kind of like defending an IP: you might not actually care if some kid’s making a fan movie about your IP, but if you don’t defend your copyright, you lose it.

2 Likes
(Wompie) #92

Semantics. A piece of their software that resides on your computer in the US which connects through US networks to their authentication servers. They operate in the US, and therefore it is a US case based on the precedent I listed above.

But this is getting into the muddy water. The point is that Brisc does have a case, and that CCP really handled this poorly.

(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #93

UM, they are still in Iceland. The HQ never moved.

(Arrendis) #94

No, you operate that piece of software, which you license from them (End User License Agreement ring any bells?).

And again: nothing about the game server or the client for it, are in any way actionable.

1 Like
(Lugburz) #95

so he is sueing variety then?

(Wompie) #96

Then read the document I posted, because it very clearly says it is actionable.

(Bono One) #97

It is actionable. The game client or “launcher” was used for illegal activity and publication of slander in violation of US Law. 28 U.S. Code § 4101.

It is obviously actionable as the victim has stated that he will act on it and now CCP is reacting.

1 Like
(Saelyth) #98

That’s what I’ve been saying since this whole fiasco started; that we, as the playerbase, simply do not possess any actual evidence to say whether they are guilty or not. That all we have is a statement, a claim by CCP that they believe he is.

I’m in the same corp as Brisc and even I’ve not said he’s innocent. I don’t have any means to prove that, so that’s not a statement I’m going to make. On the same note, however, I’m also not going to simply believe some claim implying he’s guilty without some effort to actually substantiate it.

4 Likes
(Wompie) #99

Innocent until proven guilty is the morally correct stance to take.

2 Likes
(Arrendis) #100

Can’t. They’re protected under First Amendment concerns, unless they solicited CCP to defame Brisc.

1 Like
(Wompie) #101

First amendment does not protect libel. In this case they’re just reporting what CCP reported which could be classified as just that – a report. But IANAL.

1 Like
(Lugburz) #102

TAKE THE FIFTH!!

(Wompie) #104

Him connecting his identity does not give a publisher the right to go after him simply because he is “known”. Again, that is libel.