Main › Star Citizen – Interstellar Pirates
November 4, 2015 at 1:53 am #1517
My new blog is going live in the AM. It was finished but at the last minute, something came up that legal needed me to source.Once you read it, you’ll see why.
By the time I got around to doing that, it was already late and I was busy with other things.
The blog will go live at this link tomorrow morning at 10AM EST
November 5, 2015 at 7:54 am #1609
I would have let that slide since you know alot more about this than me, if it wasn’t for the last comment 🙂 Because I did read that article when you linked it on twitter and it says “The company, and Chris Roberts, are almost certainly public figures, or at least limited-purpose public figures in the gaming world. That means they’d have to prove actual malice to win a defamation case.” which is kinda what I wrote, wasn’t it? That since the Escapist wrote it about public figures the burden is on CIG to prove escapist knew what they wrote wasn’t correct? Or is my english bad again?November 5, 2015 at 7:33 am #1606
People forget that as a very vocal and public figure, living in a “sue happy” country, I have to be very careful with what I post, say etc. Even Free Speech can only take you so far.
e.g. with this Gizmondo thing. Were it false, not sourced etc, or if I were insinuating that these four were part of that money laundering scam, that’s a lawsuit right there. But the fact is that all of these people mentioned were part of Gizmondo, regardless of whether or not they were a part of any wrong-doing. That was the point of my bringing it up. That aside from the fact that it is a well known fact that most White Collar criminals never get caught; and there are innocent people accused of crimes, sitting in jails.
Also, I gave them a final chance because, well i) I do NOT want to see this project fail ii) lawsuits are NOT fun iii) since this month is the expiration of the TOS, it is only fair to see if they are now willing to comply with such reasonable and fair requests.November 5, 2015 at 7:45 am #1608
“I’m faily sure, and Derek can correct me on this, that taking things through legal is merely a way of getting an approval that “we can’t be sued for this” rather than “everything here checks out as facts”, even though the only lawyers I’ve worked with have been corporate busines/merger/acquisition lawyers”
No, that’s not how that works. You have to ensure that you “source” material that is stated/posted. You just can’t just make up shit. And even so, it still does NOT prevent you from being sued. If you post it “knowing” it to be false and it is found to be false when you get sued, that’s when you lose.
You can get sued for anything you post and/or say. If and when that happens, that’s when you have to show the material you used etc. Read this article regarding the legal threat that Ortwin sent to The Escapist. It will give you an idea of how it works here in the US. Also this article.
e.g. If I were to get sued for my statements about the Gizmondo connection, well, they will lose because it would be found to be true (they were associated with the company). But if I said “these guys were involved in money laundering”, knowing it to be false, and I get sued – I will lose if I can’t prove that they were in fact involved in that because that’s a very serious allegation.
And The Escapist got information from sources (anonymous only to the public). If they were sued, then those sources would be deposed under law. And then it is their testimony – under oath – that will determine whether or not they made false or true statements to The Escapist. The Escapist has nothing to do with that. And since they found their sources (like mine) to be credible, that’s why they chose to stick to their story.
And no, nothing you just wrote applies to any US laws. Stick to Swedish law because I’m sure it will be more familiar to you. 🙂November 5, 2015 at 7:43 am #1607
Hence my comment it still has to be proven in court 😉
The Escapist is not preparing to go to court.
So they can “claim” what they want but have to retract it if it’s false or untrue.
And “unknown source”sounds to me the person is not willing to either verify who he/she was.
Because he or she is afraid for retaliation.November 5, 2015 at 7:30 am #1605
About Chris is not responsible for what his backers do…
I disagree with that although he can’t be held responsible in court sure.
But he should have the responsibility as head of his company to say to his community to dial it down, and be civil against a other person.
By not saying anything he basically approves to what his community does, or he basically does not give a shit about.
Again that does not put him in a positive light.November 5, 2015 at 7:27 am #1604
I’m faily sure, and Derek can correct me on this, that taking things through legal is merely a way of getting an approval that “we can’t be sued for this” rather than “everything here checks out as facts”, even though the only lawyers I’ve worked with have been corporate busines/merger/acquisition lawyers.
Which is why Derek never states as fact that Chris has actually done something illegal, only facts like “he knew these guys that were affiliated with these other really really bad people”.
Which makes the Escapist article more interesting because they actually did state that they had done illegal things, like racial discrimination. And had they printed that about “a regular joe” I don’t know if it had passed legal without more proof than an “unnamed source”, but since “the Roberts” are public figures the burden of proof went to them to prove that Escapist knew it was a false claim. And they pretty much promised the world they had done their due diligence on that.
TL:DR – legal isn’t fact checking or entering it into the history books.November 5, 2015 at 7:15 am #1603
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Even though we don’t agree on everything 🙂
1 – Ofc I don’t know everything going on here, but I do know the history about the “Uppsala maffia” not being a real maffia and the way you pumped this blog post up on twitter indicated you wanted people to think it was. So just offering a Swede’s insight into it. But you’re absolutely right, even though they weren’t a real maffia, they did alot of illegal stuff and spent alot of time in jail for it. But that’s on them – afaik neither Chris nor Erin have spent jail time for that and I doubt two game devs asked hardened criminals to take the bullet for them.
2 – Opinions are always opinions, you have yours I have mine 🙂
3 – What I meant is you used them both in this one blog posts. Pick one and stick with it, atleast within the same blog posts 🙂 (and it’s the same in Sweden, my wife didn’t want to change her last name at first but I won her over!)
4 – If you chose to write about it on your blog, fine. But sourcing a lame, pathetic third party site which had one purpose, it’s kind of reaching – in my opinion! (after all we’re talking about the actions of a backer abusing bad coding to spend more money than he should have been able to is hardly a Citizen Gate – if someone could share an e-mail where Ben tells Wulf “this is how you can brake the system and give us more money” than that would be a Citizen Gate!)
5 – I’m arguing because no court in the world would hold Chris responsible for what the backers do (unless he downright tells them, but afaik he’s never told anyone to go ahead and send death threats to anyone)! He might be held responsible for what his employees do, but hardly the backers. We all have a free will and free mind, if morons want to send you death threats it’s their actions and choice – not Chris.
6 – Yeap, you say you do and you may very well do, but it’s not a public fact. Yet.
7 – I don’t see how I miss the point? When I read that part about the blog again the point seems to be “Frontier is open about their finances, why aren’t CIG?” – which is answered by the fact that FDEV is publicly traded, they have to show their finances or they are braking the law, it’s not like they do it to be nice guys. CIG is privately owned so they don’t have to show that information so they chose to not to it. What point am I missing?
8 – One would think the “O” would mean he was listed as “officer” of the company. But I’m not arguing the fact as much as I found it funny that early in the blog post you wrote that he was “said to be CFO” and later in the same blog stated it as a fact.
9 – Yeah, that was kinda reaching for a funny point of contrast 🙂
10 – Sorry I put focus on the word “uncovered”, but it’s again an instance of you referencing claims without actual publically available proof as facts which I disagree with.November 5, 2015 at 6:51 am #1598
First I wanted to well write long post and start a long argument with you, but reading into stuff like “Gizmondo”
(Google is my friend) I started to think.
One thing that bugs me is why would Derek post on his blog knowing the following things. (this is my own logical thinking)
All his blogs where read by his lawyer if I remember correctly freedom of speech does not protect you from defamation.
So if his lawyers approved his blogs there is something really fishy going on, and no I am not saying they are criminals.
And yeah it still has to be proven in a court of law, not on the internet.
Same thing applies to the Escapist article they also have to pass the article to a legal team that looks at in the same way.
Only thing I am a bit sad over is that Derek gave them a final warning…
In the famous words of “The Thing” Ben Grimm “it’s clobberin time”
- The topic ‘Star Citizen – Interstellar Pirates’ is closed to new replies.