they threatened to sue me (My Future in 7 Days to Die)

Summary of the Subtitles

What triggered the dispute

• The creator says they were forced to make a public video after the game developer/publisher’s creator-program administrators (“Fun Pimps,” with Behavior Interactive referenced as the legal entity) posted a public statement that—although it did not name them—was widely interpreted as referring to them.
• They claim they sought legal advice first and will stick to a “factual account,” using “receipts.”
• They emphasize they are not trying to attack anyone—only correcting the public record.

Timeline and early context

• For about a month, they avoided public discussion due to:
  • lawyers being involved, and
  • private negotiations occurring.
• They say the Fun Pimps’ later public statement stressed that creators respected an embargo and published only what they were allowed to reveal.
• The creator argues that statement omitted key context and implied they knowingly leaked confidential material or deliberately violated embargo terms.

Their Core Defense: Good-Faith Use of Official Access

Official creator program access (as claimed)

• They state they were an official member of the creator program (accepted July 2024).
• They say they received “official creator system” access to a build labeled “7 Days to Die 3.0.”

Denied conduct

• They deny:
  • hacking,
  • bypassing security,
  • stealing files, or
  • obtaining the build through unauthorized/private sources.

Why they claim their actions were compliant

• They say the materials they received did not:
  • specify the exact build number,
  • indicate they were given the wrong build, or
  • warn that some shown features were outside permitted creator coverage.
• They describe two features shown in their videos (including “chicken coops” and another feature) as later claimed by the developer not to be intended for publication.

Discovery of the “Wrong Build” and Corrective Actions

When they say they learned it was wrong

• They claim they learned the build was wrong only after they had already filmed and posted videos.

How they say they handled embargo timing

• They say they followed the embargo time correctly.
• They claim the first takedown/removal request came quickly after publication while they were asleep.

Their corrective steps

• They say they attempted to correct the public record by:
  • pinning a public clarification that the footage came from an incorrect build,
  • clarifying that disputed features were not part of the public 3.0 release,
  • repeating the clarification during live streams, and
  • canceling an Instagram post containing the disputed content.

Escalation: Takedowns and Legal Threats

Demands for removal or re-editing

• Despite their corrections, they say Fun Pimps demanded removal or re-editing at the creator’s cost.

Dispute over approval/review expectations

• They argue the situation was not covered by a paid, contract-based review/approval process where creators would expect post-publication control by developers.
• They describe requesting that formal demands be routed through proper legal channels after informal Discord messages.

Behavior Interactive’s legal correspondence (as interpreted)

• They say Behavior Interactive’s legal correspondence escalated the matter.
• They report that Behavior acknowledged in writing:
  • there was “ambiguity around build access and versioning”
  • they were not disputing the creator received access labeled 3.0
  • the release notes came after the creator finalized videos (while also noting they arrived before streamer weekend began)
  • crucially: “while providing access to the incorrect build was our responsibility” (as the creator interprets it)

Dispute About Intent and NDA Framing

Main contention: no “knowing” violation

• The creator’s central argument is about intent:
  • they reject the claim that they “knowingly” violated an NDA or embargo.

Their reasoning

• They say they did not believe the material was prohibited, and therefore did not knowingly reveal confidential content.
• They argue they would not have risked their livelihood/reputation without being warned or given clear notice that the build contained non-permitted material.

Consequences They Describe

They claim:

• YouTube
  • videos were removed
  • the channel received a copyright strike (three videos)
• TikTok
  • related content was removed
  • they also received a TikTok copyright strike
• Platform access
  • they were removed from the creator program and Discord

They also argue:

• the developers removed videos wholesale (not merely disputed segments),
• increasing risk of additional strikes and harming the channel financially.

Why They Didn’t Delete Everything Immediately (Their Explanation)

• They say once formal legal threats arrived, they couldn’t safely remove content without first obtaining legal advice.
• They describe a tight deadline (weekend + a short response window), requiring quick access to Australian legal counsel.
• After that, their lawyers responded formally and attempted resolution, but the parties did not reach agreement.

Their Future Position

• They say they still enjoy the game and want to keep creating content.
• However, they say they will not participate in future early access update weekends unless there are clear, professional/contracted terms defining:
  • the exact build,
  • permitted content scope,
  • the review process, and
  • remedies if something goes wrong.
• They mention significant personal toll:
  • stress,
  • weight loss,
  • sleep disruption, and
  • substantial legal fees.
• They end by expressing exhaustion and a desire for the matter not to recur.

Presenters or Contributors (As Referenced in the Subtitles)

• The video’s speaker (the creator/YouTuber) — unnamed in the subtitles, but the primary presenter throughout
• Fun Pimps — creator program/community context; described as making public statements and filing/copying copyright complaints
• Behavior Interactive — legal correspondence and the entity seeking remedies
• Australian legal counsel / lawyers — retained and acting through correspondence; not individually named
• The creator program / Discord / creator community — referenced collectively as participants in the process