Statement is from https://xcancel.com/OriginalFunko/status/1866255848366039468#m
From: https://xcancel.com/BrandShieldltd/status/1866161489528180988#m
Edit, bonus panel! What scum.
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
739 points (97.8% liked)
Games
32992 readers
1695 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
tbf if all of this is true the registrar did do the most harm
Don't be fair to them either.
Iwantmyname acted incompetently, but so did Brandshield, who decided to go straight to the nuclear option of a registrar takedown, rather than issuing a takedown request to Itch themselves
The DNS provider (who is not necessarily also a registrar, but it's common that the registrar is also a provider) doesn't have any option to disable individual pages. They can only disable a whole subdomain or domain.
The server provider technically could, but it's much harder because the site is served on https, so they would most likely have to disable the whole server as well.
Not that the server provider was asked, it's just to illustrate that no one but the service owner (itch.io) can meaningfully block a single page. Asking the infrastructure providers is a dick move.
Edit: So the server provider was asked as well, but they're not as incompetent it seems. Also, instead of a copyright abuse, BrandShield falsely sent this as a fraud and phishing, which is another dick move.
So yeah, the DNS provider is incompetent, but BrandShield is the malicious actor here.
Ah, thanks.