Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to the copyright "submission". I don't think it's just some random crazy person. It's true that they're behaving in a strange way and utilizing shady overseas institutions, but the owner of Rodik is listed in the Panama Papers as having an offshore company in the Cayman Islands ( https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/74594 ) so that fits his MO.
As for motivation, in Japan there's much less of a cultural norm around sharing information publicly compared to the West. It's much more "if I have this thing and you don't, and I don't know you, why should I give it to you?" Some people will even get annoyed with you if you follow them on Twitter and you don't know them, or if you link to their website without asking them first. With that context, I don't think there needs to be much of a motivation beyond "people are posting videos and copies of my game online and I don't want them to".
Of course whoever is doing this doesn't seem to want to make themselves known publicly besides all the takedown notices, so I doubt we'll ever conclusively find out who they are. Much of what was being taken down is valid fair use, so even if it is someone associated with the original developer I don't really feel sorry for them getting their automated takedown request powers taken away.
>Personally I believe that whoever is doing the copyright abuse either is the original developer of the game or has some sort of relationship with them. Even though the "international copyright registration" site has no real authority, the documents they submitted include high-res 3D renders of models from the game, design documents, and source code commented in Japanese, none of which were publicly available prior to the copyright "submission".
Eh I am a bit of a collector and this line of thinking would let me establish copyright for a ton of games I have some precious treasures from.
Also I know a guy who worked for Sega and Nintendo for a while who is still sitting on a stack of design docs from his time in both, and he definitely doesn't own the IP for any of their games.
I suspect this person has located or inherited these items and is trying to establish copyright in the same way that Craig Wright is trying to pass himself off as Satoshi.
The UK Filing is probably the most interesting. However, its hard to unravel the mail forwarder. If a mail forwarder let you establish a forward in someone elses name it might be an easy way to pretend to be someone else for the purposes of UK Trademarks.
That said, could also just be convenient for filing outside of japan, japanese street addresses are notorious.
The most convincing argument in favor of Harigai is why would anyone believe there is money to be made there. Its not like sending takedown notices is a renewable source of income.
Even if someone was making a movie about it, the secrecy doesnt make a lot of sense. The guy could clear so much up with just an email.
>Would have access to all data related to Cookie's Bustle's development because he ran Rodik
Just a few years ago, the son of one of the original Metal Fatigue developers found old nightly backups and handed them over to Nightdive. I just find this to be a pretty weak element of the argument. The person with the strongest claim, using the weakest methods to establish that claim doesnt make sense to me.
The most plausible explanation, based on the facts so far provided, is that it is Harigai, and he is not happy with how the game/company turned out and does not want to be reminded about it anymore.
In fact they just spent a few thousand dollars according to the article. But they cost the museum probably 200k+ in time and legal fees - asymmetric copyright warfare.
But that can't be their motivation, because the museum was only targeted by coincidence.
Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
> Most people are unwilling to spend a few thousand dollars on a project that accomplishes nothing other than costing them a few thousand dollars. So we're curious what Brandon White was thinking.
1) You vastly underestimate the persistence of Internet trolls with too much time and money. It doesn't take many; it only takes one.
2) This could be someone testing the seams so that they can sell their services on more important targets.
They could also be mentally unwell. I've known people like this who the Internet massively empowers with its asymmetric abilities and its anonymity. This person might have unlimited free time to conduct their campaigns.
Ask any court clerk about the unending filings they get from disturbed individuals.
That's hard to reconcile with actions like issuing DMCA takedowns on videos of the game (or even Discord messages which mention it). If fewer people know a game exists, there's less of a market for copies of it.
OpenAI doubled Codex limits until April. If there is an issue with their platform they reset the limits early. This happened many times in December. They also added the 5.3 Spark model that has its own limit!
The author doesn't even mention Codex even though it likely will out compete Claude Code.
Exactly, every older person I've seen has the Plus model (RIP) with screen text turned up to 150%. A small screen for someone with poor eyesight sounds like torture.
I've commented on this before. Sign of the times. People like anything related to GPUs. In my personal coding projects I've even been tempted to ask the agent: "What features can I add that use the GPU?"
There's also a reward for not over thinking it and letting AI bring the solutions to you. The outcomes are better when it's a question, answer, and execution session.
I admit that I don't know who Tyler Cowen is, but millions (billions?) of people have drunk coffee daily for centuries and if there were ill effects in the same ballpark as opioids or tobacco by now we would certainly know?
There is even a decent chance that the Industrial Revolution and the phenomenal wealth and progress it's brought was caused by the introduction of coffee to Europe.
A professor of economics has opinions on the health effects of an extremely common substance?
And I have opinions on nuclear energy - but neither of us are worth listening to outside our areas of expertise. Unless you can supply a reason I would bother listening to him as compared to an actual expert on the subject?
Because some dude with no health or nutrition background said uninformed things, that he isn't qualified to have opinions about, on the internet? Come on, now.
I regularly run the same prompts twice and through different models. Particularly, when making changes to agent metadata like agent files or skills.
At least weekly I run a set of prompts to compare codex/claude against each other. This is quite easy the prompt sessions are just text files that are saved.
The problem is doing it enough for statistical significance and judging the output as better or not.
I suspect you may not be writing code regularly...
If I have to ask Claude the same things three times and it keeps saying "You are right, now I've implemented it!" and the code is still missing 1 out of 3 things or worse, then I can definitely say the model has become worse (since this wasn't happening before).
I haven't experiences this with gpt-5.3-codex (xhigh) for example. Opus/Sonnet usually work well when just released, then they degrade quite regularly. I know the prompts are not the same every day or even across the day, but if the type of problems are always the same (at least in my case) and a model starts doing stupid things, then it means something is wrong. Everyone I know who uses Claude regularly, usually have the same esperience whenever I notice they degrade.
When I use Claude daily (both professionally and personally with a Max subscription), there are things that it does differently between 4.5 and 4.6. It's hard to point to any single conversation, but in aggregate I'm finding that certain tasks don't go as smoothly as they used to. In my view, Opus 4.6 is a lot better at long standing conversations (which has value), but does worse with critical details within smaller conversations.
A few things I've noticed:
* 4.6 doesn't look at certain files that it use to
* 4.6 tends to jump into writing code before it's fully understood the problem (annoying but promptable)
* 4.6 is less likely to do research, write to artifacts, or make external tool calls unless you specifically ask it to
* 4.6 is much more likely to ask annoying (blocking) questions that it can reasonably figure out on it's own
* 4.6 is much more likely to miss a critical detail in a planning document after being explicitly told to plan for that detail
* 4.6 needs to more proactively write its memories to file within a conversation to avoid going off track
* 4.6 is a lot worse about demonstrating critical details. I'm so tired of it explaining something conceptually without it thinking about how it implements details.
Just hit a situation where 4.6 is driving me crazy.
I'm working through a refactor and I explicitly told it to use a block (as in Ruby Blocks) and it completely overlooked that. Totally missed it as something I asked it to do.
reply