MongolianMongoose
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2023
Acerthorn submitted a new amended complaint in Stebbins v. Rebolo. I want to remind everyone this was the order from the judge granting Acerthorn leave to file this amended complaint
Acerthorn disobeys another court order.
His requests for relief total over $6.2 million. That's 17,000 years of channel revenue. He gets this number mostly by multiplying each count of infringement criticism by the maximum damages under 17 USC §504
However the law says "In a case where the infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200"
Acerthorn accidentally explains why the defendants should be minimally liable, if liable at all.
There's a lot of milk in this complaint.
There is nothing "short and plain" about Acerthorn's 69 page monster of an amended complaint, twice the length of his previous complaint."Plaintiff is permitted leave to amend only his infringement claims based on the 2D images and his claims based on the alleged
copying of livestream videos other than the April 10, 2021 video. Plaintiff may not add any new claims or new defendants. Plaintiff must set forth a short and plain statement of his claims
showing his entitlement to relief as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff must allege specific facts establishing that the alleged content is eligible for copyright protection,
including that it meets the threshold for creativity and originality, and must plead concrete and non-speculative facts about what the defendant infringed and how."
Stebbins v. Rebolo docket 31
Acerthorn disobeys another court order.
"Although the Court has ordered me not to attempt to justify this copyrighted work in this Complaint, I still wish to preserve it for appeal. This requires that I include it in this Complaint, because amended complaints replace the old complaints in their entirety, so any claims not preserved in amended complaints are presumed abandoned"
His requests for relief total over $6.2 million. That's 17,000 years of channel revenue. He gets this number mostly by multiplying each count of
However the law says "In a case where the infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200"
Acerthorn accidentally explains why the defendants should be minimally liable, if liable at all.
"they believed it was criticism. This, in their opinion, provided them with total immunity from DMCA Takedowns, rendered my DMCAs patently frivolous, and gave them unlimited right to use my copyrighted material. Of course, that's not how fair use actually works, but they genuinely believed it."
There's a lot of milk in this complaint.
"A complete stranger called me, using the phone number I had listed on my pleadings in the Polano case, and threatened to bomb my hometown if I did not agree to stop filing DMCA takdowns"
"I received a package from UPS. It was sent to my home address, but it was addressed to the recipient “Nick Gers.” If you say the name fast, you realize that it is meant to sound
like the N-word, the racial slur against black people. To this day, I have not yet opened the package, but I still have it, with the label still sealed, so I can unbox it on webcam for the
Court to reveal its contents. The odds are overwhelmingly that the box contained something that was meant to be harassing, such as literal feces."
random.txt worthy quote"At this point, it doesn't matter what I did. Unless I literally raped or killed someone, nothing else could possibly justify people taking the law into their own hands to this degree.
Then again, even if I raped or killed someone, you would expect the police to get involved, meaning I would be entitled to due process of law"