So you are not from the US are you.

Freedom of speech only covers protection from censoring from the government. Nothing else.

And you cannot say whatever you want. Freedom of speech has many limitations. You cannot use your speech to harm others. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. etc.

Countersue? For what?

This is not Judge Judy. This is a real court we are talking about.

They have rules and regulations that govern everything. You can't just 'countersue' like on a TV show. You have to have actual legal damages.

You went to law school as well buddy? While there, I took the copyrights class. It was fairly interesting.

I love the internet.

This "case" is idiotic, if anyone was able to sue a person for poorly reviewing their shit games then companies would make more money releasing dogshit games and sueing than they ever would putting any effort at all into creating good games, would just be a horrific thing if this was ever to pass into the beginnings of a case.

Edit - Law talk and typo's together are an odd mix to try and read.

Harassment, fraud, slander and libel, they're even suspected of trying to find and spread Jim's home address to incite further harassment and potential violence against him. If you've been following the Digital Homicide debacle you should know just how shady they are.

Neither do you apparently. 

a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/#sthash.IU88F0as.dpuf

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work — for instance, writing a book review — fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes

Copyright Claims(Temporary) do not equal Copyright Takedowns(Permanent), the takedown is when said claim is succesful because of a violated copyright.

Playing a videogame alone is transformative, commenting/critiquing it is clear fair use.

$10 million seems exteme and he isn't gonna win anyways. It's just an opinon :P

First, you don't get to strike anything out. I can bring up whatever i feel like.

Second, again what are you talking about? You sound like you have personal information about this case. I am pretty sure that first, anyone can freely talk and criticise any piece of entertainment without any need to consult anyone. Second, you seem to be adressing footage is it? I don't even know what you are talking about and you should specify wich videos you say aren't in conformance with the law. I am sure that he had permission to make the reviews... just like everyone else did.

Also... how come is the work harmed in any way by his videos? By telling the truth? The truth is harmful? That sure is a funny interpretation of harmed. It would be harmed if he made stuff up, but i don't believe that was the case.

Agreed, it's beyond stupid that people can be awarded millions of dollars because their feelings were hurt. The litigation system is fucked.

A few things.

1) The plaintiff in a lawsuit can request whatever amount they please: no one but the plaintiff checks the lawsuit before it is filed, and the clerk who accepts it merely looks to confirm that it contains the required materials. Disputing the number is up to the defendant and/or court. Just because you sue for millions, it does not mean you will ever sniff that amount.

2) There are two kinds of lawsuits over the death of a loved one: survivor lawsuits and wrongful death lawsuits. Both were created by statute relatively recently to address problems and inconsistencies which existed without their creation.

The purpose of the wrongful death suit is to compensate the survivors for the lost income which the loved one would have provided, plus expenses incurred due to the death, less the amount they would have incurred had they continued to live. Simply put, all of tort law is intended to financially compensate a victim for another's wrongful actions, and the wrongful death suit was created because the family of a breadwinner should not be worse off financially due to the wrong committed by the tortfeasor.

As an aside, much of the work behind reaching these numbers is already done by actuaries: when someone says you can't put a value on human life, they are factually incorrect, as there is an entire profession which focuses on doing just that. For the record, there is a dollar value placed on individual organs, extremities, digits, and other body parts as well, with said value differing based on the person's age, race, gender, profession, education, health, and several other variables.

In a surival suit, the plaintiff is stepping into the shoes of the deceased to recover the value of the deceased's expenses as a result of the death, as well as things like pain and suffering which the deceased could have sued for had he lived. The purpose of the survival lawsuit appears to be primarily intended to not let a killer off the hook for the victim's losses simply because the victim died instead of clinging to life: you don't really want to reward the tortfeasor simply for doing too good a job in hurting someone, after all. It thus simply lets the family assert the same claims that the deceased could have had the tortfeasor not been as successful in hurting the deceased.

As a licensed attorney I have already done the work of researching fair use law, and beyond the mere scope of an online checklist at that, thank you.

I am simpy inviting you to apply the law to the facts herein, as my admittedly limited understanding of the facts leads me - and apparently Digital Homicide as well, based on its failure to allege copyright violations in this suit - to draw the opposite opinion as you.

So again: you've got my attention. State your case for why these particular videos are not fair use. I am seriously open to argument and willing to be persuaded.