Serious question: why aren't false DMCA claims prosecutable as fraud? The elements are there - a knowingly false representation, detrimental reliance, and materiality.
Nintendo seems to go through these litigious cycles every once in a while. I wonder if this is them asserting their IP as part of a larger strategy to focus attention on an upcoming system launch?
Apparently one individual was first to react and discuss these at length over twitter, and they convinced themselves that these takedown notices were not genuine:<p>>They previously argued that the takedown notices couldn't be from the Japanese gaming giant, because Nintendo add-ons have been around since 2005 and because the company would've contacted Valve, the publisher of Garry's Mod, itself.<p>The nonsensical logical leap of an internet detective. Instead of positive evidence, they make an inference from the absence of information, attaching great meaning to that inference. And then, with that rickety scaffolding, proceed to assert the claims were not legitimate.<p>There are probably innumerably many reasons, relating to idiosyncracies of where and how Nintendo allocates their resources, the discoverability and motivation to prioritize, that can account for timing.<p>I think if there's such a thing as Internet Detective Syndrome, it's core defining feature would be the inability to comprehend the extent to which facts are really just idiosyncratic nothingburgers, because reality itself really is that disorganized and without meaning sometimes. Sometimes the facts are just circumstantial, and not key clues that demand special explanation or attribution of special motivations.
That seems rather slow reaction time... Clearly they have not had many people actually looking around the Internet to find too many of these things always...
This is a technically true story, but why don’t they report the Garry Mod has issued false DCMA notices too? It really seems like Engadget hates Nintendo.