Please reconsider how to handle the JaWoodle thing.

bdubyah said:
Thing is, that doesn't matter. A company can't base its decisions on what an average person might think about it. Obviously in this case TFP is the big guy going after the little guy, which people are always going to side with the little guy. TFP can't win. People moaned and groaned forever about ■■■■ing jars, so TFP shifted updates around and added them back, with a lot more besides that. People still complained, now because other content had been delayed. They literally can't win no matter what they do, so they should just do what they think is right and ■■■■ everybody else. I'd like to see Rick and Joel get asked what their thoughts are on the situation and respond with "■■■■'em." Woodle didn't make this game, none of the creators did. People acting like because someone recorded some videos they should get part of the revenue from the game or something. Insanity. As someone who watches his share of YT content, I ■■■■ing hate YT culture.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's not some kinda no-win Kobayashi Maru.

Like the old War Games line goes, if the only winning move is not to play, then don't play.
 
TravisFleuryLopez said:
I made this account to express my disagreement with how The Fun Pimps have reacted to the events which happened TO JaWoodle. He's done a lot to promote the game, and current handling of the situation does not sit well with me. While I understand the desire to retain secrecy regarding remarkably dangerous nuggets of knowledge about things like C*****N C***S (which I am excited for, however, note the sarcasm), please consider that cat left the bag eons ago and what's done is done. Who did it? The Fun Pimps, on accident. Who's suffering for it? JaWoodle. Not cool. Respectfully, The Fun Pimps are currently out of line. Out of pocket. Call it what you want, but please seek a better, more human path forward in this affair.
Click to expand...
What exactly have they done that is wrong? Obviously they shouldn't have sent him the wrong build. But then asking him to either edit or remove the video is entirely fine. When he refused, then it is entirely fine to end their partnership and force the videos down.
 
Grandpa Minion said:
I decided to settle the debate: the verdict by AI is in, AI determined tfp mostly in the wrong

AI read: TFP carries more blame, but JaWoodle was not completely right​

The cleanest breakdown is:

TFP was wrong first​

TFP supplied JaWoodle with a build containing unreleased bandits and other unfinished content. An official forum moderator acknowledged that streamers were not intended to receive or expose that b205 material. That same post initially said the developers did not consider removing footage already seen to be productive.

JaWoodle was participating in an authorized creator event and publishing at the permitted time. Unless he received a clear warning identifying the hidden material, the initial upload is primarily TFP’s failure, not his. They controlled the build distribution and quality-assurance process.

JaWoodle was wrong after being notified​

Once TFP contacted him and asked him to remove or edit the unreleased material, he reportedly refused. Even though deleting or rebuilding videos could cost views and revenue, refusing was a deliberate business decision. Multiple forum accounts—including discussion of JaWoodle’s own messages—say he understood that refusing could end his creator-program relationship.

TFP’s published video policy also says creators may use only officially released game content and reserves TFP’s right to seek removal of content outside those guidelines. That gives TFP a reasonable basis to request removal and to remove him from future creator events.

So JaWoodle was not entitled to both refuse the developer’s request and expect the partnership to continue unchanged.

TFP appears wrong in how far it escalated​

Removing him from the creator program would have been proportionate. Copyright strikes and legal threats are considerably more severe—especially when TFP caused the original exposure and had previously said removing already-seen footage was not productive.

A YouTube copyright strike results from a formal copyright-removal request, removes the video, and can place the entire channel at risk if multiple strikes accumulate. It is much more serious than simply ending a private creator partnership.

That does not automatically mean the strikes are legally fraudulent. TFP owns the game assets, its public policy excludes unreleased content, and the private creator agreement or NDA has not been made public. Fair use is fact-specific, and receiving a build by mistake does not automatically grant permanent publishing rights.

But from a fairness and public-relations standpoint, escalating directly toward channel-threatening copyright enforcement—rather than compensation, editing assistance, demonetization, temporary unlisting, or ending the partnership—looks disproportionate.

Bottom line​

Initial leak: TFP’s fault.
Refusing to edit or remove it after notice: JaWoodle’s fault.
Ending his creator access: TFP was within reason.
Copyright strikes, legal threats, and hostile public implications: TFP appears to have overreached.

Overall, I would place more responsibility on TFP—approximately two-thirds TFP and one-third JaWoodle. JaWoodle made a stubborn commercial choice after the mistake, but TFP created the situation and then used the heavier weapon despite having several less destructive options.

The forum extremes are both wrong: JaWoodle is neither an innocent victim who made no choices nor a malicious thief who somehow stole the build. TFP is neither powerless to protect unreleased content nor justified in treating its own distribution failure as entirely the creator’s wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
Is this realy AI? It seems so smart and correct. Scary...
 
Grandpa Minion said:
I decided to settle the debate: the verdict by AI is in, AI determined tfp mostly in the wrong
Click to expand...
I'm assuming based on how you post here that your AI has been trained to respond disproportionately unfavorably towards TFP.

So here is an unbiased, well informed AI response.

------------
Here is the cleanest way I see the entire situation, based on JaWoodle’s own transcript, the Discord screenshots, the Lurkit terms, the Creator Program requirements, the TFP EULA, and the other timeline evidence you found.

1. TFP/BHVR caused the original problem​

BHVR supplied JaWoodle, through the official creator system, with a build presented as Version 3.0 even though it was not the intended Streamer Weekend build. BHVR later acknowledged ambiguity around build access and versioning and accepted responsibility for providing the incorrect build. JaWoodle also says the release notes arrived after he had already completed the videos, although before publication.

When a company distributes prerelease software under embargo, correctly identifying and controlling the build is primarily its responsibility.

2. The EULA strengthens his defense of the initial upload​

The 7 Days to Die EULA says that anyone who bought the game or received a gift or press-release copy may monetize video work made with the software. JaWoodle therefore was not merely assuming he could publish gameplay; he had a general written video-monetization license covering press copies. (Steam Store)

If an official creator build labeled 3.0 appeared in his account, that gives him a legitimate argument that his initial coverage was authorized.

But the EULA does not expressly grant unlimited permission to reveal every hidden asset in every mistakenly supplied internal build. It reserves rights not specifically granted, says special access may require additional terms and policies, treats prerelease copies differently from ordinary copies, and preserves TFP’s ownership of the game’s audiovisual material. (Steam Store)

So the EULA supports:

“I had general permission to monetize video made from the official press build I received.”
Click to expand...
It does not conclusively establish:

“I had unrestricted permission to expose every disabled, unfinished or confidential asset accidentally contained in it.”
Click to expand...
The previous NDA is therefore crucial. JaWoodle admits an earlier NDA existed but disputes whether it covered these assets. We have not seen it, so neither side can honestly claim the contractual question is already settled.

3. The first upload was probably not a deliberate leak​

Nothing we have shows that he hacked, stole or deliberately sought out the wrong build. It came through the official system and appeared to be 3.0.

However, “I had no way of knowing” goes too far. He says he openly wondered whether the material was “unfinished, hidden, or operating somewhere in the back end.” He also received release notes before publication that apparently did not include the disputed features.

There was also surrounding information indicating Bandits were not part of 3.0, including the developer stream and the instruction to showcase vanilla V3.0. Your contemporaneous messages show that the no-mods rule was being communicated before JaWoodle received the download link.

That does not prove he knowingly leaked anything. It does mean he encountered enough warning signs that stopping to ask would have been the responsible move.

Initial-publication fault: TFP/BHVR 80% — JaWoodle 20%.

4. The real turning point came after he was notified​

The first removal request arrived about 14 minutes after publication. He says he was asleep, so there is no fair criticism of him for not responding immediately. When he woke, he pinned a correction, clarified that the features were not in public 3.0, repeated that correction on streams and cancelled planned Instagram posts.

Those actions support his claim that this was not a deliberate leak.

But a correction did not solve the disclosure. The footage remained available for more people to watch, clip, repost and judge. It could continue creating false expectations, expose unfinished work, damage a future reveal and circulate without the pinned explanation.

The screenshots show that TFP/BHVR initially asked him to remove or private the affected videos while they investigated. The later email acknowledged that editing was not a small request and proposed editing the disputed sections from the long-form video while unpublishing the Shorts and TikToks centered on the unreleased material.

JaWoodle instead proposed leaving the videos online with a pinned correction because he was unwilling to absorb the full financial and performance cost of the mistake. That is stated in his own transcript.

His frustration was understandable, but his refusal was still a separate decision.

The EULA does not clearly give TFP automatic editorial control or expressly require deletion on demand. But its general video license also does not guarantee that permission to display mistakenly supplied prerelease content remains unlimited after the rights holder identifies it as unauthorized. The NDA and event-specific terms could control that question.

Morally and practically, once he knew what the footage was, leaving it public because removal would cost him money placed his business interests above containing the disclosure.

Post-notice fault: TFP/BHVR 20% — JaWoodle 80%.

5. Being independent did not mean having no obligations​

JaWoodle argues that he was not an employee, was not paid and had not given TFP/BHVR editorial control over his channel. That does not resolve the narrower issue.

TFP did not need ownership of his channel to place conditions on privileged prerelease access. An independent creator can still be bound by an NDA, embargo, limited copyright license or event rules.

The Lurkit terms say Creator Program participants must follow instructions supplied by Lurkit or the participating company concerning Missions and Rewards, and generally bear Mission-related costs unless otherwise agreed. Whether Streamer Weekend legally qualified as a Mission or Reward is unclear, so this is relevant but not decisive.

TFP’s own Creator Program rules mainly support revoking creator status; they do not expressly prohibit debug mode or require takedowns.

6. The escalation was understandable, but severe​

After the informal requests and BHVR email failed, JaWoodle received a formal legal demand alleging an NDA breach. He retained counsel, negotiations failed, and TFP submitted copyright takedowns against three videos.

They had a legitimate reason to stop continued distribution of material they regarded as confidential and outside the intended build.

At the same time, copyright strikes are severe. The EULA’s permission to monetize press-copy footage gives JaWoodle a real argument that the initial use was licensed. Whether the takedowns were valid would depend on the actual videos, NDA, scope of the license, fair use or fair dealing, and TFP’s good-faith belief.

The EULA also helps TFP: it gives broad termination rights, allows action where continued access creates risk or potential harm, limits many categories of damages, includes indemnity language and selects Texas law and Texas courts for EULA-related disputes, subject to applicable law. (Steam Store) That would make a large damages case harder, although it would not automatically defeat independent statutory claims.

A settlement involving reasonable editing compensation, immediate removal, no republication and a mutual release probably would have been the least destructive outcome, although neither side was automatically entitled to those terms.

7. Both public narratives blurred two different events​

TFP’s public statement appears to have blurred the time embargo with the permitted scope of coverage. JaWoodle says he published at the stated embargo time, and nothing we have disproves that. TFP should have distinguished publishing early from publishing material outside the intended build.

JaWoodle blurred the events in the opposite direction. The wrong-build mistake strongly defends his initial upload, but it does not justify his later refusal to remove footage after notice.

His strongest argument is:

“I did not intentionally obtain and initially leak prohibited material.”
Click to expand...
His weakest is:

“Because they caused the mistake, I was entitled to leave it public unless they absorbed my losses.”
Click to expand...

Final fault assessment​

This is a moral, ethical and practical judgment—not a court ruling.

Initial supply and publication:
TFP/BHVR 80% — JaWoodle 20%

Conduct after direct notice:
TFP/BHVR 20% — JaWoodle 80%

Legal and public escalation:
TFP/BHVR 45% — JaWoodle 55%

Overall: TFP/BHVR 50% — JaWoodle 50%​

TFP/BHVR created the disaster by distributing the wrong prerelease build and communicating poorly. The EULA makes JaWoodle’s initial publication more defensible than it first appeared.

JaWoodle then had a clear opportunity to contain that mistake and knowingly chose not to because removal would cost him money and performance. His correction addressed misinformation, but not the continued disclosure.

TFP/BHVR caused the accident; JaWoodle helped turn it into a prolonged legal and community war by refusing to remove material after he knew it was never intended to be public.
Click to expand...
 
Double G said:
...
JaWoodle instead proposed leaving the videos online with a pinned correction because he was unwilling to absorb the full financial and performance cost of the mistake. That is stated in his own transcript.
...
Post-notice fault: TFP/BHVR 20% — JaWoodle 80%.
Click to expand...
Wording is key in perception.
"he was unwilling to absorb the full financial and performance cost of their mistake." reads already different while still being factual equal.
"TFP was unwilling to share financial and performance cost of their mistake." reads very different while putting the blame on the other side.

AI is indeed in who's bubble it's trained and how you use prompts. Meanwhile it is up to use how we judge the outcome and never take it for an absolute truth.

(My personal AI has a different outcome, Post-notice fault: TFP/BHVR 80% — JaWoodle 20% 🫠 )
 
There were negotiations. You can't blame either if you don't know what was negotiated. Maybe JaWoodle wanted an absurd amount of money and TFP/BHVR was not willing to pay that. Or TFP/BHVR offered to little for JaWoodle and he didnt accept that. Anyways the negotiations had no result and the strike is there.
 
Prisma501 said:
There were negotiations. You can't blame either if you don't know what was negotiated. Maybe JaWoodle wanted an absurd amount of money and TFP/BHVR was not willing to pay that. Or TFP/BHVR offered to little for JaWoodle and he didnt accept that. Anyways the negotiations had no result and the strike is there.
Click to expand...

He could have just taken down the video. A video usually gets the most views in the days right after uploading especially one that reveals new content. And even if a video is taken down the creator still gets the money. And that one video was one of his top performing ones. Greed is a bi***.
 
pApA^LeGBa said:
He could have just taken down the video. A video usually gets the most views in the days right after uploading especially one that reveals new content. And even if a video is taken down the creator still gets the money. And that one video was one of his top performing ones. Greed is a bi***.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. He should have. $$$
 
Double G said:
But the EULA does not expressly grant unlimited permission to reveal every hidden asset in every mistakenly supplied internal build. It reserves rights not specifically granted, says special access may require additional terms and policies, treats prerelease copies differently from ordinary copies, and preserves TFP’s ownership of the game’s audiovisual material. (Steam Store)
Click to expand...
I read the whole thing with way too much attention for an AI post (like, I might've actually read it once in full :P ). But this bit seems either hallucinated or entirely unrelated? Special access .. "special" is only in the EULA in the context of DLC and other online features, and PRE-RELEASE is mentioned only as a complete ban on transferring PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE. These don't seem related to this case in any way..?
 
fish said:
I don't know that I agree and I'd be interested to know what context you fed the AI. If you listen to Woodle he gives some hints to his defense. There is no contractual arrangement here so TFP's take down requests are shaky at best. Woodle published a video in good faith. It is uncommon for game developers to drop surprises, but I think we all know Trader Rekt well enough to know that's not his style (it's the player's fault for not liking the game that is delaying bandits after all).

Give the AI a bit more context. Woodle is working Australian hours and set the video to publish automatically when the embargo was lifted. He was then asleep. The video has been up and watched probably heavily in that time. The issue is not that Woodle did it, it's that 'someone' was going to show it and it happened to be Woodle because anyone that knows him knows that he will find stuff like that. He knows the game that well.

Neither bandits nor chicken coops were a state secret. Sentiment is not devoid of suggesting that 3.0 without bandits would be problematic.

There's also the history of the poorly received 2.0 release and 2.5 as a correction to that.

So, I think you've got the conclusion for the information you gave the AI, but you haven't really fed it the whole story. Trust me Im a doctor, I mean, I'm someone that works with AI 40 hours a week :)
Click to expand...
in my case i wanted it to research on its own without feeding it anything, for the most clean unbias Ai result:
 
pApA^LeGBa said:
He could have just taken down the video. A video usually gets the most views in the days right after uploading especially one that reveals new content. And even if a video is taken down the creator still gets the money. And that one video was one of his top performing ones. Greed is a bi***.
Click to expand...
"Usualy" might not be valid for this one. To be honest I initaly skipped it as bs clickbait. But then TFP fueled my interest and to have an informed opinion... Well, you know... It's a crappy job but I made the sacrifice to watch it 🫠
I don't see myself as an unique creature so this might be true for a few others, it is reasonable this one gained more views later on. Personaly I did not check views before and after so I just don't know for sure but Streisand might be related here.

The greedy bi*** remark goes both ways: TFP could have shared the costs of lost revenue and re-editing, TFP could have hired creators to keep full editorial rights, TFP could have invested in lawyers for solid streamer-weekend contracts...
Post automatically merged:

Oh, I forgot the cheapest way to prevent these drama's: TFP could have invested in just a few minutes to check the codes before sending them.
 
Dead Smarty said:
"Usualy" might not be valid for this one. To be honest I initaly skipped it as bs clickbait. But then TFP fueled my interest and to have an informed opinion... Well, you know... It's a crappy job but I made the sacrifice to watch it 🫠
I don't see myself as an unique creature so this might be true for a few others, it is reasonable this one gained more views later on. Personaly I did not check views before and after so I just don't know for sure but Streisand might be related here.

The greedy bi*** remark goes both ways: TFP could have shared the costs of lost revenue and re-editing, TFP could have hired creators to keep full editorial rights, TFP could have invested in lawyers for solid streamer-weekend contracts...
Post automatically merged:

Oh, I forgot the cheapest way to prevent these drama's: TFP could have invested in just a few minutes to check the codes before sending them.
Click to expand...
So, how much did JayWoodle want for compensation in the negotiation? 200K, 150K, 100K, 50K, 10K, 5K, few hundred bucks? You cant have an opinion on what you dont know. Maybe Woodle thought he could blackmail TPF/BH into an absurd amount of money. You dont know, i dont know, but you keep insisting that whatever JaWoodle asked should be paid? Laughable.
 
Prisma501 said:
So, how much did JayWoodle want for compensation in the negotiation? 200K, 150K, 100K, 50K, 10K, 5K, few hundred bucks? You cant have an opinion on what you dont know. Maybe Woodle thought he could blackmail TPF/BH into an absurd amount of money. You dont know, i dont know, but you keep insisting that whatever JaWoodle asked should be paid? Laughable.
Click to expand...
I have no idea, it was not mentioned but the claim was they did not want to compensate anything.
By the way, there'e a lot of "maybe" in your defense for TFP, even an assumtion he demands crazy sums of money. So unless you can support that insinuation your response is the laughable one.
For both of us it's just the same: We can have our own opinions and I at least try to have an informed one and not an assumed one. So don't tell anyone here they can't have an opinion unless it's yours.
 
theFlu said:
Maybe you murdered your wife? That'd make you a murderer! How horrible.
Maybe Don't judge based on baseless accusations?
Click to expand...
My statement is that the negotiations failed. I dont know why and you dont know why. But the pro JaWoodles make statements without knowing, as you do not know. So what conclusion can there be made about either side being wrong or right? Exactly. None. So tell me what does your ad hominem add to the discussion? Fact is, there were negotiations. They failed. Until one or both of the parties reveals why they failed, there is no right or wrong. Nice try though.
Post automatically merged:

Dead Smarty said:
Oh my dear... Am i discussing with a murderer?
Click to expand...
Prisma501

Post in thread 'Please reconsider how to handle the JaWoodle thing.'

theFlu said:
Maybe you murdered your wife? That'd make you a murderer! How horrible.
Maybe Don't judge based on baseless accusations?
Click to expand...
My statement is that the negotiations failed. I dont know why and you dont know why. But the pro JaWoodles make statements without knowing, as you do not know. So what conclusion can there be made about either side being wrong or right? Exactly. None. So tell me what does your ad hominem add to the discussion? Fact is, there were negotiations. They failed. Until one or both of the parties reveals why they failed, there is no right or wrong. Nice try though...

Tell me what did they negiotiate and who is to blame they failed? No arguments and falling back to ad hominems is, well...lame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top