Cultcow Russell Greer / @ just_some_dude_named_russell29 / A Safer Nevada PAC - Swift-Obsessed Sex Pest, Convicted of E-Stalking, "Eggshell Skull Plaintiff" Pro Se Litigant, Homeless, aspiring brothel owner

[Puff]

Wait, was this ever actually served?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Null has 14 days to file motion for reconsideration.

He also has 90 days to appeal to SCOTUS.

I believe this case would fit one of the criteria (c) they consider before taking the case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/2023RulesoftheCourt.pdf

Wait, was this ever actually served?

You are a moron. The answer is obviously it was. On the district and the appellate level.

 

[DumbDude43]

He also has 90 days to appeal to SCOTUS.
View attachment 5420154
I believe this case would fit one of the criteria (c) they consider before taking the case:
View attachment 5420157

https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/2023RulesoftheCourt.pdf

You are a moron. The answer is obviously it was. On the district and the appellate level.

ngl getting a supreme court ruling on greer v moon would be kino

 

[PyrrhicRustle]

ngl getting a supreme court ruling on greer v moon would be kino

I know it's not actually what the argument would be and would almost certainly not come up, but getting the Supreme Court to rule that we haven't actually an hero'd any trannies would be very funny. And I guarantee wikipedia still wouldn't accept it as a source in our favor, but it might make companies think twice about destroying the capital-I Internet in order to shut down a poor innocent gossip site.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

ngl getting a supreme court ruling on greer v moon would be kino

just imagining the Supreme Court having to deal with this lolsuit has me laughing my ass off. I want this to happen so bad…

 

[deeman]

if it turns out the whole board is at fault for said school shooting, can we all hide in Null's apartment? I'm a damn good cuck... cook i mean....

 

[lolwatagain]

View attachment 5419586

Anyway, here's where the Appeals court disagreed with the district court,
View attachment 5419599
I'm not sure this reasoning would survive without "drawing all reasonable inference in Mr. Greer's favor".

This would not survive at all under any standard more strict than the Motion to Dismiss standard. I wouldn't find it a reasonable inference to conclude that "mocking an incomplete DMCA and not fulfilling an incomplete DMCA" is encouraging Copyright Infringement, but I think "Construing the pro se complaint liberally" part is pulling a significant amount of weight.

That being said, I don't know if a motion to strike the immaterial, impertinent and scandalous portions of Rusty's complaint would have made any difference, as those parts don't really matter, because the part of the ruling that matters doesn't rely on any of the retarded bullshit Rusty put in his complaint.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

They already made an article about this:


Sadly archive hits a paywall, so my screenshots will have to suffice

https://www.law360.com/articles/1733285/10th-circ-renews-ip-suit-against-controversial-web-forum

https://archive.ph/cDZBr

The author falsely accused Null of a federal crime in here, saying that “Moon also illegally posted Greer’s song […] to the forum” something Null did not do. Other than this and giving a brief history of Russ, this pretty much just quotes the court doc and Russ’ lawyer saying that this will make society Great Again.

Edit: Bloomberg just released an article about us too:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/songwriter-targeted-by-swifties-revives-suit-against-kiwi-farms

https://archive.ph/iEpZA

Also behind a paywall

 

[Piggle Rick]

I like the way the article implies the farms killing people was a finding by the court and not just something Greer said. Great job media.

 

[Project Zircon]

When Greer vs. Moon goes to the Supreme Court I really hope they find that Russel Greer is a massive faggot for taking a hooker out for dinner.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

When Greer vs. Moon goes to the Supreme Court I really hope they find that Russel Greer is a massive faggot for taking a hooker out for dinner.

It will be about as laughable as SCOTUS trying to rationalize why Greer has a Taylor Swift obsession, and then claiming that that is Kiwi Farms’ fault as well.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I don't understand the logic of this ruling, what do the suicides, the New Mexico school shooting or the Christ Church shooting have to do with Russel Greer's copyright claims?

Furthermore, how does showing off Greer's lolsuit emails change whether or not his copyrighted materials are being reposted under fair use? You could make any number of arguments regarding parody, educational purposes or critique.

 

[A-Stump]

I'm just wondering: At this point, what can they do to Null that hasn't already been done to him?

 

[Atlictoal]

The media going after that nutty Taylor Swift fan who was doxing people was the best thing that ever happened to old turd lips, hence that ass-kissing "Swifties" headline in Bloomberg

 

[Pee Cola]

Simply put the current legal dynamic is no longer tenable, as this lawsuit has shown. The Kiwifarms has been so successfully defamed the defamation is now being cited by appellate judges. as justification for a lazy "fuck you" ruling that simply cites the cases every law student is forced to read in intro to copyright.

One wonders whether KF is at risk of being Dykstra'd. I don't think it's likely, but we're living in clown world so who tf knows.

As for those "news" articles... I have to give it to the Digital Justice Foundation, they're obviously very good at writing press releases.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I don't understand the logic of this ruling, what do the suicides, the New Mexico school shooting or the Christ Church shooting have to do with Russel Greer's copyright claims?

Idk man, I mean, you could read the last few pages and find out, but I guess you’ll just never know.

Furthermore, how does showing off Greer's lolsuit emails change whether or not his copyrighted materials are being reposted under fair use?

Because Fair Use was never raised as a defense? Appeals court even pointed that out. Skordas focused on Greer failing to plead contributory copyright infringement, not whether or not it was fair use. Fair use was mentioned once in a single paragraph in an appellate document to address one of the DMCA points the opposing council raised. It was neither actually raised on the district level, nor could it have been raised on the appellate one.

I'm just wondering: At this point, what can they do to Null that hasn't already been done to him?

Take his cash, imprison him, etc.

hence that ass-kissing "Swifties" headline in Bloomberg

I’m okay with being called a Swiftie

 

[Orange Rhymer]

This suicide shit is retarded. We just talk shit here. It’s not being forced down their throats like a feminine penis. These people have to actively search for what we are saying here amongst ourselves. I think it would be pretty cool if all the weird trannies were forced to read KF but unfortunately that’s just reality and you will never be able to prevent everyone everywhere from hurting someone’s feelings.

We threaten narratives, and ultimately, the Attention Economy.
The last successful sector of American Industry.

I'm grateful the Colorado judges didn't also call for criminal investigation of treason.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I'm just wondering: At this point, what can they do to Null that hasn't already been done to him?

Take 300k from him. Total financial rape.

 

[A-Stump]

Take his cash

I hope they expand his payment options, he's awfully thin on those.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Who knows. Hell, several youtubers did a "let’s read" of Greers book in order to mock it. Was that "willfull infringement" too? IMO the reason why Greers "best friends" are in this case is so they can gut the "fair use doctrine" in Copyright Law. I would not trust the judge in this case either, all things being equal, to not tuck tail in the face of what is clear institutional pressure on the courts.

Courts get reversed all the time. It indicates nothing.

Simply put the current legal dynamic is no longer tenable, as this lawsuit has shown. The Kiwifarms has been so successfully defamed the defamation is now being cited by appellate judges. as justification for a lazy "fuck you" ruling that simply cites the cases every law student is forced to read in intro to copyright. Either the lies are challenged forcefully, or this place is going to get buried. Simple as that.

Lol, calm down. It was a motion to dismiss (aka failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted). You always take the asserted facts as true because you’re only looking at whether the complaint actually states a claim. Meaning: if everything they said is correct as they described it, did they hit all the required elements for a lawsuit. Not that they won. Not that they will win. But that they stated words that if true would meet the requirements for a claim.

The facts are “accepted as true” for the purposes of the motion, not for the litigation as a whole. It’s just a construct that allows a court to see if there is ANYTHING potentially contestable or of possible merit that the plaintiff has alleged. And in this case, as stressed multiple times (lol), they gave even greater latitude to construction because Russell was pro se.

Not my bit, but can Josh have a chance to prove that it's false?

Yes, this is just a “the suit is back in play” event - they are where they would have been if no motion to dismiss had been filed.

…

On the decision:

1. The appellate court here seems to have stretched the legal standard from “caused or materially contributed to or authorized” to “encouraged and therefore materially contributed to” infringement.

Here’s what they said of the standard:

“As applied here, Mr. Greer was required to plausibly allege Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms caused, materially contributed to, or authorized the direct infringement by Kiwi Farms users and other third parties of Mr. Greer’s book and song.”

They also agreed with the district court that passively allowing the infringing materials to remain does NOT meet the standard.

And here’s what they found, taking Russell’s allegations as if correct and accurate (again, that’s for purposes of the motion, not a ruling for the suit overall):

“Rather, we conclude a reasonable inference from the facts alleged is that the reposting of the takedown notice, combined with the refusal to take down the infringing material, amounted to encouragement of Kiwi Farms users’ direct copyright infringement.”

Note: that says “encouragement.” Not part of the standard, based on their words.

They go on:

“Mr. Greer’s complaint alleged Mr. Moon knew Kiwi Farms was an audience that had been infringing Mr. Greer’s copyrights and would happily continue to do so. Indeed, Kiwi Farms users had been uploading Mr. Greer’s copyrighted materials with the explicit goal of avoiding anyone “accidentally giv[ing] [Mr. Greer] money.” RI.20. Further infringement followed—encouraged, and materially contributed to, by Mr. Moon. See Diversey, 738 F.3d at 1204*.”

What I didn’t see in a skim of that is the connecting line from “encouragement” to “materially contributed to.” Those are not the same thing, but the court seems to have treated them as almost/effectively synonymous. Yet no citation that encouragement = material contribution.

*I didn’t look at this cite (above), so it could eviscerate what I just said, though I’d think they would have been explicit if they the case stating the standard clearly included both

2. And I’d also argue that a) it wasn’t “encouragement,” to post the notice and refuse to remove the materials, and b) none of it was any kind of active material contribution to the infringement.

Given Josh has (I think) a general and complete practice of posting takedown notices and other legal materials, there’s an argument that that was not unusual to do so here and not specific to Russell/his materials in particular, and therefore not evidence of “encouragement” of anything. It’s a business practice, that’s it. Just S.O.P.
And what’s left after that is merely passively allowing the infringement to take place - which would not meet the standard for contributory infringement.