How One Copyright Troll Tried To Erase a Cult PC Game

A surreal 1999 Japanese PC adventure, Cookie’s Bustle, spent years teetering on the edge of becoming true lost media. Not because the game was obscure, fragile, or unloved, but because a determined copyright troll spent years firing off legally dubious takedown requests against anyone who tried to document or preserve it. The effort only collapsed when those takedowns ran headfirst into a community of preservation-focused historians armed with lawyers and patience.

This episode is more than a strange trivia note in gaming history. It’s a case study in how easily online copyright systems can be weaponized, how vulnerable niche works are to erasure, and what it takes to push back.

The Strange Little Game at the Center of the Storm

Cookie’s Bustle is not a famous blockbuster. Released in 1999 for PC by Japanese developer RODIK, Inc., it is a point-and-click adventure notable for its odd art style and offbeat tone rather than commercial success. As the Video Game History Foundation (VGHF) explains, the game appears to have been printed only once in Japan, and it has long been out of circulation.¹

That combination of factors creates what copyright law calls an “orphan work”—a work that is still under copyright but whose rights holder is unknown or cannot be located. The VGHF’s research indicates:¹

• The original publisher, RODIK, Inc., is defunct or otherwise unreachable.
• The game’s copyright was only ever registered in Japan.
• No later reprints, ports, or official digital releases are known.

For historians and fans, that makes Cookie’s Bustle culturally significant. It is a snapshot of late-90s Japanese PC design—strange, experimental, and at risk of disappearing forever if remaining copies and documentation vanish.

From Cult Curiosity to Target of a Takedown Campaign

For many years, Cookie’s Bustle existed in the gray area common to many old games. A handful of collectors had physical copies; some enthusiasts shared screenshots, footage, or disc images; and preservationists attempted to document the game for research and historical purposes.

That status quo changed when a person using the name Brandon White and the corporate label Graceware, SL began sending aggressive copyright claims. According to VGHF’s detailed public statement, this campaign escalated around 2022 and targeted nearly every trace of the game online, including:^1,2

• Archival uploads of the game itself
• Gameplay videos and screenshots
• Fan art and community modifications
• Even Discord messages discussing the game

The mechanism for this pressure was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and equivalent notice-and-takedown systems. Platforms, wary of liability, often remove content as soon as they receive a facially valid complaint, even if the underlying claim is weak. Many creators have neither the time nor the legal support to file counter-notices or fight back.

How DMCA Notice-and-Takedown Can Be Misused

The DMCA’s safe-harbor structure, codified in 17 U.S.C. § 512, was designed to protect platforms that swiftly remove allegedly infringing content when notified by a rightsholder.³ In principle, this balances two goals:

• Allowing copyright owners to act quickly against real infringement
• Letting online services host user content without constant legal risk

But the system assumes that people act in good faith. In reality, takedown processes can be weaponized in several ways:

• Harassment: Flooding a creator or community with notices to intimidate or silence them.
• Competition: Targeting rivals or critical reviewers to suppress unfavorable content.
• Copyright squatting: Claiming rights to a work without credible proof, then using notices to control its online presence.

Graceware’s actions around Cookie’s Bustle fall into this last category, according to VGHF’s investigation.

The Questionable “Copyright Certificates” Behind the Claims

Each takedown request must assert some legal basis for ownership. In this case, Graceware and its representative, Brandon White, relied heavily on what they described as copyright registrations obtained through a private outfit called INTEROCO “Copyright Office” in 2021.¹

These certificates purported to grant White rights over nearly every aspect of Cookie’s Bustle:

• Source code
• Game concept
• Character designs
• Other creative elements

However, VGHF’s legal review concluded that these “registrations” are not equivalent to formal registrations with a government copyright authority (such as the U.S. Copyright Office). In other words, they are closer to private records than to legally recognized proof of ownership. As the U.S. Copyright Office makes clear, registration is a specific legal process performed by official offices, not private businesses using similar language.⁴

VGHF reports that White was never able to provide meaningful, legally persuasive evidence that he held any genuine rights to Cookie’s Bustle. Yet the volume and persistence of his notices were enough to frighten platforms and community members into compliance.

Turning a Niche Game Into Near-Lost Media

The effect of this campaign was chilling. Around the web, references to Cookie’s Bustle began to disappear under a barrage of claims. For a small, obscure game, this level of removal can be existential:

• Few physical copies exist, and they are fragile.
• Digital mirrors, screenshots, and commentary provide vital backups.
• Communities that keep knowledge alive are easily fractured by legal threats.

Once both physical and digital traces of a work become scarce, later researchers may not even know what they are missing. In the language of fan communities and archivists, the work risks being reclassified as lost media—something known to have existed, but no longer accessible in practice.

This is particularly alarming in the context of games, where preservation is already precarious. Unlike books or films, games often depend on specific hardware, operating systems, and interactive systems that are difficult to emulate or maintain over time. Industry bodies and academics have repeatedly warned that video games, especially older or online-only titles, are disappearing at a worrying pace.⁵

Enter the Video Game History Foundation

The situation might have continued quietly if not for the involvement of the Video Game History Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving and researching video game history. VGHF had already been working with materials related to Cookie’s Bustle as part of its archival mission. When Graceware’s takedown demands targeted VGHF itself, the organization decided to push back.

Instead of accepting the claims at face value, VGHF:

• Consulted its legal team regarding the legitimacy of Graceware’s asserted rights
• Investigated the history of Cookie’s Bustle, its original publisher, and its copyright status
• Analyzed the INTEROCO certificates and related paperwork for legal significance
• Documented the pattern of takedowns and their impact on preservation

The outcome of this research was a detailed public report explaining why Graceware’s position was unsound and outlining the evidence that Cookie’s Bustle is best understood as an orphan work whose true rights holder cannot currently be identified.¹

Ukie and the Collapse of the Takedown Campaign

A key piece of the puzzle was how Graceware’s notices were reaching so many platforms. According to VGHF, many of the takedowns were being routed through the UK-based trade association Ukie, which offers a DMCA-like takedown service for its members. Ukie, in turn, was responding to Graceware’s assertions that it owned the rights to Cookie’s Bustle.^1,2

Armed with their research and legal analysis, VGHF approached Ukie to present their findings. They argued, in effect:

• Graceware’s evidence of ownership was inadequate.
• INTEROCO certificates do not establish legal rights.
• VGHF’s own use of Cookie’s Bustle-related materials fell under defensible preservation and research activities.

After review, Ukie made a decisive move: it suspended takedown services for Graceware related to Cookie’s Bustle.¹ Without the ability to leverage this automated channel, Graceware lost a major tool in its campaign.

VGHF and other outlets report that this effectively ended the wave of mass removals. The foundation also indicated it has not ruled out future legal action if new, bad-faith takedown requests cause further harm.²

What This Means for Game Preservation

The outcome is a relief for historians, archivists, and fans: Cookie’s Bustle is no longer in immediate danger of being scrubbed from the internet by a single aggressive claimant. But the episode exposes several systemic issues:

Lessons for Creators, Platforms, and Preservationists

The Cookie’s Bustle saga offers broader lessons beyond a single game.

For Preservation Organizations

• Document ownership uncertainty: When dealing with orphan works, keep detailed records of due diligence. This can be vital when defending your use later.
• Invest in legal partnerships: Access to lawyers who understand copyright and fair use is critical when facing determined trolls.
• Communicate publicly: VGHF’s thorough write-up not only defended its own position but also educated the community and pressured intermediaries to reconsider their actions.

For Platforms and Trade Associations

• Don’t outsource judgment entirely: While automated systems are efficient, there should be some scrutiny when a single claimant repeatedly targets one obscure work.
• Listen to credible counter-evidence: Ukie’s willingness to evaluate VGHF’s research helped neutralize a bad-faith campaign.
• Consider preservation as a public interest factor: Material used for research, criticism, and archiving can fall within legitimate defenses such as fair use, particularly in the U.S.³

For Fans and Independent Creators

• Know your rights: DMCA counter-notices exist for a reason, though they carry risks and should be used with care.
• Mirror responsibly: Sensitive archival material should be redundantly stored, respecting local laws but recognizing how fragile cultural memory can be.
• Support preservation groups: Organizations like VGHF are often the only ones with the expertise and resources to push back effectively.

Cookie’s Bustle Today: Freed, But Not Fully Safe

With Ukie suspending takedowns for Graceware, Cookie’s Bustle has effectively been liberated from an attempted copyright capture. According to reports from both VGHF and gaming press, material related to the game remains preserved within VGHF’s digital archives, and the wider community is once again able to share information, footage, and fan works without the shadow of automated mass removals.^1,2,6

However, the game’s legal status is not magically clarified. It is still, as far as current research shows, an orphan work. The original rights holder could, in theory, emerge in the future. But that hypothetical possibility is very different from the concrete harm of a third party claiming control without evidence and attempting to erase public knowledge.

The key difference now is that the community understands the case, and there is a well-documented public record of why Graceware’s claims were rejected. That transparency makes it much harder for a similar campaign to succeed in silence.

Why This Story Matters Beyond One Bizarre Adventure Game

The Cookie’s Bustle case resonates because it exposes a tension at the heart of digital culture:

• On one side, legal frameworks like the DMCA exist to protect creators and publishers from widespread infringement.
• On the other, these same frameworks can be exploited to suppress legitimate research, criticism, and preservation, especially when dealing with old or obscure works.

When a single individual can almost erase a game from public view by stacking questionable paperwork and exploiting automated takedown channels, it is a warning sign. If this can happen to one odd Japanese PC game with a small but dedicated fanbase, it can happen to other forms of media—especially those that lack powerful corporate stakeholders.

The response, in this case, shows an alternative path: coordinated research, transparent communication, and legal action when necessary. It is not an easy or cheap route, which is why organizations like VGHF play such an important role. Their work proves that dedicated preservationists can not only save games from the ravages of time and hardware decay, but also from the misuse of laws originally intended to protect creativity.

FAQ: Copyright Trolls, DMCA, and Lost Games

What is a copyright troll?

A copyright troll is an individual or organization that aggressively asserts copyright claims, often with weak or dubious legal basis, primarily to extract settlements, control content, or harass others rather than to genuinely protect creative work.

Did Graceware actually own Cookie’s Bustle?

According to the Video Game History Foundation’s legal review, Graceware and its representative were unable to provide meaningful proof that they owned any enforceable rights to Cookie’s Bustle.¹ The private certificates they relied on do not carry the legal weight of official copyright registrations.

Is Cookie’s Bustle now public domain?

No. The game is best described as an orphan work: a copyrighted work whose rights holder is unknown or cannot be located.¹ That does not place it in the public domain, but it complicates enforcement and raises policy questions about access and preservation.

Can DMCA be used to silence criticism or preservation?

In practice, yes, at least temporarily. While the law includes penalties for misrepresentation and allows counter-notices, the imbalance of resources means that many targets simply comply or disappear rather than fight back. This case is notable precisely because a well-resourced preservation group chose to challenge the claims.

What can be done to prevent similar cases?

Potential measures include platforms applying more scrutiny to serial claimants, trade groups revisiting internal policies, lawmakers refining notice-and-takedown rules, and increased support for preservation institutions that can stand up to abusive claims.