I suppose, unlike the district court, 10th Circuit did acknowledge that the book, unlike the song, was on Google Drive, but claims that the song was here.
Yeah, but the Link he posted in the complaint just goes to his OP. The Song isn't located in the OP. There is a hyperlink to a dead post from 2022...Maybe its been changed in the years since though. The last edit was at the start of 2023.
More importantly, they do say this.
To “explain his side of things and to hopefully clear up the slander surrounding him,” Mr. Greer wrote a book. RI.15. He self-published and copyrighted the book, Why I Sued Taylor Swift and How I Became Falsely Known as Frivolous, Litigious and Crazy, around November 2017. By January 2018, Mr. Greer discovered “his book had been illegally put onto Kiwi Farms.” RI.18. Under the title “Rusty’s Tale,” Kiwi Farms users provided a Google Drive link to a full copy of Mr. Greer’s book. RI.18."
So even if we are taking Greers sperging liberally as to mean he's alleging the material was posted to the forum, the 10th circuit clearly said the forum posted a google drive link. Russel certainly "asked for the material to be removed" in his DMCA, but that is not what he factually alleged. He factually alleged in his complaint that Users were disseminating his material located on a google drive.
Paragraph 42 of Greers complaint alleges this.
42. Below the title, “Rusty’s Tale”, is a Google Drive link to Greer’s book. (
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2VdH79IRT1RN1pvdnJ1cTk2cUU). Somebody created a copy of Greer’s book and put it in a Google Drive file that is accessible on Kiwi Farms.
He then posts some screenshots as exhibits to users allegedly posting his material. Again, with no links or citation.
Rereading the 10th circuit opinion, they do seem to make a distinction between the book and the song, with the book being on the drive and the song being shared by users. Greer also makes this allegation in the complaint but makes no reference links in his DMCA and simply links the OP, which does not contain the song. The core thrust of his complaint is that third-party users on the forum were doing it. Not the forum or Null.
I suppose if we were reading the allegations "liberally" the factual background the judge is speaking about could be accurate. I just don't think it's a good idea to let it go by without a squeak since this is the core of the defense argument that is just getting hand waved away.