How to break consumer trust in 47 DMCAs

Consumer trust is something that should be worth more than gold to a goods provider, be it a company or an individual level. They’re the ultimate lifeblood of the market, while your workers are its veins. Losing that trust is like halting the flow of that blood, or cutting yourself open to bleed trust out for whatever reason. Stop babbling and get to the point.

Battlestate Games decided to abuse the DMCA system to take down 47 videos of the Youtuber and Streamer Eroktic. The reason wasn’t copyright issues, but that Battlestate Games does not want to associate themselves with the Youtuber. One has to wonder why they didn’t file a Defamation claim or something of that nature if they regard themselves being defamed, rather than claim the ‘tuber used their content in their videos against copyright law.

I’m not going to discuss the event much itself, SidAlpha has a video up on how things started and how it went down, and One Angry Gamer has an article up on the whole thing. Battlestate Games’ own Facebook page has a statement on the why they DMCA’d Eroktic, but considering their statements are contradicting and offer no reason for why DMCA was abused outside that they didn’t like his content.

However, there is one bit in their statement that they should’ve considered more than once in the statement;

The relations between developer and players are always based on mutual trust and respect. We want to state our position once again – we will always have zero tolerance to lie, provocations, hacking, destructive behavior, etc.
We want to ask you not to give in to provocative actions of various persons, not to trust everything that they write unsubstantially.

The relationship between a developer and the players can’t be mutual trust and respect. This is a nice thing to think and have PR firm to establish, but the consumer can only trust a corporation so far, as your main intention is to drive profits and positive PR. Otherwise Battlestate Games would not have abused the DMCA system. The sheer lack of respect towards a consumer’s content, regardless whether or not the content was to their liking, tells more about the company’s drive to suppress content that could impact them negatively. Battlestate Games is not the authority to decide who has the freedom to criticise or express their views and opinions on their products. No, EULA doesn’t work the way they seem to think.

Their zero tolerance on lying, provocation and destructive behaviour is in direct opposition to what they’ve themselves are doing. This isn’t unusual, companies do tend to allow themselves to practice things that they don’t want the consumer to do. Not sure if they’d hack their own game, but that’s more or less how they want to come across; cheating is bad. God I miss using an Action Replay.

As much as their statement pleads not to trust various persons, in the same breath you should never trust a corporation. This isn’t a plead, this is just common sense. A corporation has to look after its own interests over the interests of the consumer, as the two rarely meet in the middle. No amount of PR speech should cloud the consumer judgement, and a corporation has to tread the fine line between trying to keep their own interest at the top all the while still serving the consumer demands.

How much trust can consumer give a corporation now that they’ve shown to be untrustworthy and abusing systems? It’s an uphill battle for Battlestate Games now. They’ve lost consumers, with some demanding a refund at this time, and this has given them more publicity, for better or worse. They have their fans who will regard their action a justified one, but even there we see lots of people being dissatisfied with DMCA being used.

Reading around the subject on Battlestate Games’ own Facebook, on videos in Youtube and some forums, it would seem that this isn’t the first time the company has been practicing curbing down negative press and criticism. One has to wonder how much trust can be put on Battlestate Games overall, considering they have been found to infringe arms manufacturer’s copyrights, like Spikes Tactical noted. Apparently Glock is being used without licensing as well alongside numerous other equipment. These are companies who are relatively draconian on protecting their trademarks and intellectual properties.

You could say they shot themselves in the leg. If trust is mutual, Battlestate Games are surprisingly untrustworthy behind their bells and whistles words.