Cookie's Bustle - Obscure 1999 Japanese PC Game that's now gotten attention because some copyright dipshit is trying to scrub this from the net.

[Cups2Cups]

It also looks like a test pilot for World Governments to remove other "problematic" games and media in the future, aka anything that does not "follow the message" and "appeal to the modern audience".

While that certainly is a concern, here is why I think that cannot happen: Video Games made for mass audiences are typically developed in democratic 1st world countries, under formed corporations and LLCs, which are legal entities created with that country's laws and frameworks. (Yes, indie game devs do exist but let's keep it simple). Because such things exists, there is money on the line. If the government decided that game was problematic but it's own laws prevented it from arbitrarily removing it. It would need to go through the government process to pass laws to have it removed.

Such actions can be challenged in court (because holy shit money is involved). Visibility for such things related to free speech and censorship (especially when it comes to video games) is extremely high in the press. In the US specifically, the liberal camp is concerned about the free speech aspect, whilst the conservative camp would be concerned about their freedom of choice in respect to the free market. It is my opinion that video game bans have failed before- and will fail again.

In response to going the civil aspect that our entity "Brandon White" is attempting: It would not work in the modern setting with modern games in which we have modern cataloging now. There is clear distinct ownership now of who owns what IP and such attempts to do what he is doing will be easily swatted away. I'm pretty sure civil suits to remove video games from shelves from normal folks have failed as well. I will not dismiss though the possibility of a think-tank like group forming that could theoretically be super well funded to take videogame companies to court. But we run again into this issue: Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Choice in respect to the free market. Given how tied VG corps are now to the rest of the ecosystem this will not bod well as it sets precedent for OTHER products (like toilet paper brands for a fun example).

The situation with Cookie Bustle is unique. The time it came out (1999) was when the world was coming out of the dark ages and laws in respect to digital property was starting to formulate. The company who also created the game instead of being sold to another company (as typical as is today) simply stopped operating. I personally don't have enough knowledge of Japanese business law on why or how that is but for now we can assume that no one can "take over" that company legally and/or no one is interested in attempting to acquire the rights because its not feesible or simply impossible. Hence, its vulnerability to weirdos like Brandon White to see what they can get away with.

---

Now because you brought up "teh evol goobermint" angle, this tickles a part of my head I used to enjoy using in asking the question: "Why?" When hackers/crackers find code exploits with websites they don't like (or owned by people they don't like), they will go after it. Same mindset can be used in regard to law, which can be viewed as a "soft" code. Humans are not machines, we bend, break, ignore law all the time-- or we exploit it.

There is a problem with the "code" we are implementing to enforce copyright and its come up in different ways and shapes and forms and its being exploited. Youtubers for example are often targets of fake DMCA take down requests for... whatever topic or reason the filer disagrees with and their video is removed temporarily, costing the youtuber time and money. In certain genres of music such hip-hop or electronic music musicians use "sampling" of other media to enhance their work, but then that also is worthy of a DMCA takedown because well... that "Yeah boiiiii" sample used only once in the track means the whole thing has to come down, costing the musician time and money. I think you are seeing where I am going with this.

With the above in mind, it is my opinion that "Brandon White" is exploiting the lack of clarity (or thereof) in the law of what happens when media does not have a clear, distinct owner. The company Rodik has ceased functioning and its owners cannot be found or are deceased. Making it easy for "Brandon White" to take advantage of this lack of clear succession language in law to try to take it over. As the article from the poster earlier in this thread said, Brandon White used sneaky tactics utilizing other country's laws to try to appear to be legitimized to be the owner of the game to use the US's laws to take down legitimate discussion or review of the game.

While I appreciate @Thiletonomics opinion of what might be happening, I like to take this view that is more likely: This is an attempt by a group of people to show that laws or "code" of copyright is broken, and needs to be reformed again in respect today's modern society, and in respect to cookie bustle and other games like it... preventing media from being erased from history.

 

[Thiletonomics]

While that certainly is a concern, here is why I think that cannot happen: Video Games made for mass audiences are typically developed in democratic 1st world countries, under formed corporations and LLCs, which are legal entities created with that country's laws and frameworks. (Yes, indie game devs do exist but let's keep it simple). Because such things exists, there is money on the line. If the government decided that game was problematic but it's own laws prevented it from arbitrarily removing it. It would need to go through the government process to pass laws to have it removed.

Governments have actually banned specific games before, either in a categoric manner (i.e. loot box games being banned in Belgium and The Netherlands), or even banned directly (i.e. Australia banning Left 4 Dead [I forgot it was 1 or 2, or both, that were banned], and China banning Battlefield 4).

The use of copyright striking would be a softer way of banning a game, and it could be used to intentionally frustrate people by making it so that it exists, but is out of reach for people. It would be like the carrot-on-a-stick deal, but you'd never be able to reach the carrot, and the Governments would laugh at your feeble attempts to get it. And Governments are not happy that people are rejecting media being made for the "modern audience", i.e. Concord and Highguard, and are trying to strike back harder to take away other media options, so all that is left is the said "modern audience" media that almost no one genuinely likes. And they WILL resort to trying to erase history to do so, like how the Chinese Communist Party attempted to do with their Chinese Cultural Revolution.

 

[Fag Alert Major Fag Alert]

Governments have actually banned specific games before, either in a categoric manner (i.e. loot box games being banned in Belgium and The Netherlands), or even banned directly (i.e. Australia banning Left 4 Dead [I forgot it was 1 or 2, or both, that were banned], and China banning Battlefield 4).

The use of copyright striking would be a softer way of banning a game, and it could be used to intentionally frustrate people by making it so that it exists, but is out of reach for people. It would be like the carrot-on-a-stick deal, but you'd never be able to reach the carrot, and the Governments would laugh at your feeble attempts to get it. And Governments are not happy that people are rejecting media being made for the "modern audience", i.e. Concord and Highguard, and are trying to strike back harder to take away other media options, so all that is left is the said "modern audience" media that almost no one genuinely likes. And they WILL resort to trying to erase history to do so, like how the Chinese Communist Party attempted to do with their Chinese Cultural Revolution.

You want a Nepal to happen to Governments worldwide?

 

[Cups2Cups]

Governments have actually banned specific games before, either in a categoric manner (i.e. loot box games being banned in Belgium and The Netherlands), or even banned directly (i.e. Australia banning Left 4 Dead [I forgot it was 1 or 2, or both, that were banned], and China banning Battlefield 4).

The use of copyright striking would be a softer way of banning a game, and it could be used to intentionally frustrate people by making it so that it exists, but is out of reach for people. It would be like the carrot-on-a-stick deal, but you'd never be able to reach the carrot, and the Governments would laugh at your feeble attempts to get it. And Governments are not happy that people are rejecting media being made for the "modern audience", i.e. Concord and Highguard, and are trying to strike back harder to take away other media options, so all that is left is the said "modern audience" media that almost no one genuinely likes. And they WILL resort to trying to erase history to do so, like how the Chinese Communist Party attempted to do with their Chinese Cultural Revolution.

I'll open a thread asking for input on this. There is no indication that this is happening to Cookie Bustle, and there is clearly a discussion you want to have about all that.