You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.
As for Melton's $1000, Nick's reaction was weird. He was bemused and then casually said it was payment for his appearance in Vegas. I didn't detect any lies, but then again, he lies about everything.
Wouldn't it be funny (and weird!) if Nick was fuming over the stiffed hotel stay and thought Melton donated $1000 because he wanted to make up it to him. Then he finds out Melton was just messing with him.
Chad Zumock read an email from April's friend on his live stream today. The friend claims Nick made April send the goo eating texts, that Nick got April's twitter password and was tweeting as her and that April thinks Nick manipulated her way worse than Aaron. Zummock claims he's checked his source but it could be someone fucking with him. View attachment 7371520
Here's the original stream link but it's now members only: https://www.youtube.com/live/q8jjDgtlxMA email is at 34 minute mark
The parody defense for Supertips needs to be put to bed. This is not just a copyright or a parody matter.
I deal with a lot of IP issues in my day job. Without getting into specifics, I have to make a lot of calls before things go to legal, projects that can often lean into parody and other fair-use edge cases, especially around humor.
To keep clean hands, I went to ai sloppa for an overview of parody:
Parody is a form of expression that imitates the style, content, or characteristics of a particular work, genre, or figure—usually in a humorous or satirical way—to comment on, criticize, or simply entertain.
A parody typically includes:
Imitation – It closely mimics the distinctive features of the original, such as tone, structure, phrasing, or subject matter.
Exaggeration or distortion – It often exaggerates traits for comic or critical effect.
Commentary or critique – Many parodies highlight flaws, absurdities, or conventions in the original, sometimes with underlying social or political critique.
Humor – Though not strictly required, humor is central to most parodies.
Examples:
Weird Al Yankovic’s song parodies mimic pop hits with new comedic lyrics.
Scary Movie parodies horror films by mimicking their tropes in an exaggerated, comedic way.
The Onion parodies news media with fake stories that mirror real-world journalism styles to satirical effect.
Legally, parody can also be protected under "fair use" in U.S. copyright law if it is transformative and comments on the original work.
Imitation - it's nearly exact duplication of the voice (to varied success). Fail.
Exaggeration or distortion - The faces may be comical, but voices are not altered in a way for comedic effect. Fail.
Commentary or critique - This varies widely by the message delivered. Generally, suggesting someone is a pedo or has a small dick, two of Nick's favorite jokes, is not protected. Fail.
Humor - Did you laugh at these? I know Nick did, but ... we saw his standup. Fail.
The concept of the AI talking faces *could* be a solid framework for a parody piece, and hence protected fair use. The problem is in execution. "Crowdsourcing" that actual message of the digital avatars, means the bulk of what airs on old Balldoman's show, doesn't meet the criteria listed above. (Maybe excepting imitation (hence the framework)). The "execution", ie text, of the supertips is just all over the place. Examples of actual parody up thread have been correct (the Conan "satellite" interviews, South Park "celebrities", Jibjab, SNL impersonations, etc. To make it a parody, one would have to spend some time to actually flesh out a script, well at least a line or two, that hits most cornerstones of parody and meeting the legal protections for it, as well as the legal cornerstones. Again, more sloppa, on legal issues with parody and fair use in the US:
Under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, courts consider several factors to determine if a parody qualifies as fair use:
Purpose and character of the use:
Parody is often transformative, meaning it adds something new (e.g. humor or critique) to the original work.
Commercial use does not automatically disqualify it, but non-commercial uses have a stronger fair use claim.
Nature of the copyrighted work:
Using highly creative works (like songs, movies, or novels) is more sensitive, but parody often needs to borrow from such works to make its point.
Amount and substantiality of the portion used:
Parodies often use recognizable parts of the original to "signal" what they are referencing—but only enough to conjure it.
Courts generally allow limited use if it’s necessary for the parody to be effective.
Effect on the market:
If the parody doesn't serve as a substitute for the original or harm its market, this supports fair use.
Courts usually find that parody doesn't reduce demand for the original, but instead targets it critically.
Purpose and character of use - stealing someone's face and voice to say whatever someone wants, is not in of itself a creative transformation. Varies on execution, but in general fail. It is commercial, which would raise the bar for use. - Fail.
Nature of work - The copyrighted/owned work is NIL, more on that below. I would call this contentious at present. - Likely fail, but not much precedent.
Amount and substantialness - Nick and supertips steal the entirety of a person's voice, as well as their image. - Again, not much precedent. Likely fail.
Effect on the market - It's related to likeness but also could be reputational damage. Is it actually a substitute for Kurt? One could make a Kurt stream using it. Would anything on supertips help promote the original? Steel Toe has previously said yes, but obviously Sean and Kurt disagree. I would not want most of what has been said through Nick's supertips to be said of me. - Likely fail.
In Nick's case (and for that matter, Melton's), he's been using specific avatars to mock his "enemies". Even just the selection of avatars on each show is a unique work, and one that doesn't shine a good light on supertips and the channel owners. The ill will (perhaps even malice) is clear and likely to kneecap any parody defense.
One more wrinkle, parody is only protected in the US, and recently Canada and the UK (to a more limited extent). Most other countries lack a parody exception (I don't think, for example, the EU's has been tested, and it varies by country). (Go get some, Energii Kang.)
NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) is a whole other ball of wax, and as others have mentioned, there's not clear precedent on that yet, especially with regards to AI avatars of real people. The few examples that have existed, have leaned toward compensation for NIL holder being compensated for any non-agreed rights. There's a fairly strong argument that the brand of "parody" from superitps wouldn't be protected, outside of very carefully crafted works.
The last intersection between all this mess is public confusion. Parody has to be distinct enough to be a unique work, even if it largely reuses parts of the original.
Oh, and they don't follow their own TOS. Surprise, surprise.
Note, this is not legal advice, I've purposefully kept things broad and sourced the weakest shit online. Go talk to a real (practicing) lawyer. The above is largely in line with my understanding on some weird issues these days.
He cant even blame drugs for that. Matt Stone and Trey Parker managed to predict what would happen and protect themselves in nearly the same circumstances while also high. You know if Nick was actually as smart as he thought, hed throw in one of these before the show. View attachment 7372340
Nick is too stupid and lazy to even do that correctly. He'd get a copyright strike and have his video taken down.
Then he'd tardrage about it being fair use and fight it. The funniest thing is watching the internet and the courts just quietly take away everything he thinks should be free to him. There is nothing funnier than watching him sperg out on his constitutional right to steal, feed drugs to his children, eat Aaron's goo and lead AA meetings to comply with court ordered community service.
I find it hilarious that he thinks anyone cares about the damn house. Nick only cares about it b/c Aaron not buying it messed up what he thought was the perfect solution to his financial mess he gotten himself into.
Aaron could be telling the most ludicrous lie about the house and I still wouldn't care because it was all some hypothetical bullshit anyway, and Nick losing it to fuel his nose-candy addiction is 10x funnier. Nick's only fixated on it because he either perceives or knows Aaron's version of events to be a lie, and because he's developmentally stunted, assumes that discrediting Aaron will restore his own standing. In reality, the best possible outcome for him is that people distrust both him and Aaron, which doesn't uncoke his children, uncuck his marriage, or unfuck his career. And besides, anyone who's not a Toe superfan already has a nuanced view of Aaron's trustworthiness. We already assume he could be lying about not wanting to buy the house, and again, just don't care because it's a nothingburger that only the people involved seem concerned about.
Well... maybe. That's where I went. (I still hope for any sign of resistance from Kayla.)
This just doesn't sound like Kayla.
As someone who knows April well and has helped her through her living hell the past couple of months, just know April was completely manipulated by both Aaron and Nick.
I've sent you stories before so you're aware of what she dealt with with Aaron and Nick. Nick was 100% the one that put April up to sending these text messages about Aaron eating cum. They were obsessed and determined to bring down Aaron after Aaron ratted them out to the police right around that time.
Nick also got April's password to her Twitter and took her Twitter over and would tweet as April. Nick had completely brainwashed her. At one point when she was at her lowest point they took advantage of her.
I'm only sharing this with you because you seem to be the only guy who doesn't really take sides with Aaron and Nick. I don't like how you've treated April in the past. You said awful things. She's my friend but I understand she wasn't nice to you at the time but I assure you she's a great person.
Without giving up who I am, just know April is in a better place and as much as Aaron was awful to her, Nick was way worse in the end. I think it's gross that Nick was being celebrated at that event in Vegas. That's the only reason I'm sharing this with you. Nick should not be celebrated. Nick should be in prison.
I think most of us assumed it was Keanu, but it would be bizarre for her to send emails to Zumock and Aaron with whom she is very friendly.... unless it's some dumb gayop she's pulling.
The faggot claimed to be sober the entire time so even if he were telling the truth about 30 days sober, despite obviously being incredibly fucked up and wasted literal days before claiming that, would mean he hadn't been sober in the 30+ days period that he supposedly had to be sober for his probation.
I think most of us assumed it was Keanu, but it would be bizarre for her to send emails to Zumock and Aaron with whom she is very friendly.... unless it's some dumb gayop she's pulling.
I assumed it was Kiki too at first, but Aaron seems to be suggesting he got something similar and is asking Zumock to share the name with him. Whereas I assume Kiki would just talk to Aaron.
Kayla would be rich, but I don't think we're that lucky.
It was, and still is, a popular theory around these parts that Nick was skinwalking as April in those tweets. I still believe that.
I am having extreme difficulty accepting that most people, to include April, would think it's cool or sexy to publicly claim that a dude fucked somebody so rough that buckets of blood ended up all over the sheets. That sounds like some psychotic bullshit. The product of deranged, sadistic and immature mind.
Like somebody who thinks the Marquis de Sade is a good role model. Gee, let me think. Who do we know in all this who has spoken approvingly of de Sade?
He should be self confident, because all the "humiliating" personal texts Brokedick Nick releases show that Aaron was the only (belated) responsible adult human being with normal, non sociopathic or narcissistic emotions in the Qover. Rackets is trying to embarrass him, but he's showing us a basically good guy who got sucked in to drugs and the fleeting local "celebrity" Rekieta used to have. He quickly regrets it and shows love, anger and anguish over his wife. And he is now a little wiser for the experience and refocusing on taking care of his kids like a good Dad. Those are not humiliating things, and when they're coming from an aggressively degenerate unrepentant asshole they just make people hate Brokedick more.
Life has a strange, paradoxical way of working things out. Aaron could only become a better dad by admitting he was being a bad dad. Nick will continue being a bad dad because he can't tolerate the idea he is a bad dad. Fighting against reality only prolongs your delusions. If you face the pain head-on, it disappears the moment you realize you can do something about the cause (you).
I don't even know if I'd call Aaron a good dad. The fact he had to be prompted to leave the Qover by his ex-wife and one of his own children indicates the situation is pretty dire. BUT, he obviously does have affection for his family because he chose them over his own bruised ego. This is what Nick doesn't get. Your family is made up of individuals. It's not some hivemind. Nick made decisions that were good for Nick assuming that the things that benefit Nick would also benefit his family. Because he's a narcissist, he assumes his experience is global and his "happiness" should be accounted for. He makes decisions for his family using libertarian ideals, accounting for his benefit alone. The children he sees as a burden are the single greatest blessing he will ever get. Children inspire you to heal spiritual afflictions. Instead, he resents the only things in his life that could ever make him feel fulfilled.
He thinks he can thread this needle of "good for me / good for the kids", but the most reliable sign of a good dad is a desire to sacrifice. Why do you think so many ancient religions involve some form of sacrifice to prove piety? It made it real. Being a tired dad should be the most satisfying feeling in the world. It means the love is real.
Note, this is not legal advice, I've purposefully kept things broad and sourced the weakest shit online. Go talk to a real (practicing) lawyer. The above is largely in line with my understanding on some weird issues these days.
I'll note I disagree with even treating it as a copyright issue. Your name, image, and likeness are not a copyright issue. A fair use analysis is not appropriate. Voice misappropriation is an entirely different issue and the four factors of fair use quite simply do not apply and were not even mentioned in the leading case on the issue, which as I have mentioned repeatedly, is Waits v. Frito-Lay.
There is no fair use analysis of a voice misappropriation claim. It is entirely inapplicable.
Maybe he isn't. But he's at least trying. He knows he's less than excellent and is putting in some effort. He admits he has been severely wrong.
That's worth something.
Nick won't even admit that his behavior has been utterly subhuman. To him, this is all a big joke, this was just the weird and funny thing that happened, and he literally has nothing to apologize for. That is why Nick should kill himself.
Nick will die a worthless piece of garbage who left the world a worse place than when he came into it.
Aaron still has hope, at least I think so. I try to have faith.
The faggot claimed to be sober the entire time so even if he were telling the truth about 30 days sober, despite obviously being incredibly fucked up and wasted literal days before claiming that, would mean he hadn't been sober in the 30+ days period that he supposedly had to be sober for his probation.
He has been drinking since November and until a couple of days before his sentencing, by his own admission.
He first admitted he was drinking when he called into some show, not Melton, but another fatty he is a fan of. I forget his name. He sounded high/drunk on the call in.
For some weeks he was playing "According to the state of Minnesota, I'm sober" or something like that, failing to mention his testing stopped.
And oh, his cook streams, which he denied being under the influence, but by the timeline he wasn't tested then.
Technically he was allowed to drink between November and the sentencing.
This "parody" defense all started when big brain Nick mentioned the Falwell vs Hustler mag case in the NLO chat weeks ago. I'm sure he told that fat nonce Melton they have nothing to worry about Lol
This "parody" defense all started when big brain Nick mentioned the Falwell vs Hustler mag case in the NLO chat weeks ago. I'm sure he told that fat nonce Melton they have nothing to worry about Lol
I will note the cases all dealt with entirely different causes of action. Falwell lost on the libel claim, as it was obviously a PARODY. The cartoon could not be viewed as a statement of facts, and in fact included a disclaimer that it was a parody.
The precedential SCOTUS case overruling it was on INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, the only cause of action where Falwell prevailed.
This has literally nothing to do with any torts related to voice misappropriation for commercial purposes. Nick likes lying about this but don't let him trick you.
Well. No. Nick listed the house for $450k in August 2024 and sold it for $380k in January. Claiming that he didn't sell it at a discount is another obvious lie by Nick.
This "parody" defense all started when big brain Nick mentioned the Falwell vs Hustler mag case in the NLO chat weeks ago. I'm sure he told that fat nonce Melton they have nothing to worry about Lol
I will note the cases all dealt with entirely different causes of action. Falwell lost on the libel claim, as it was obviously a PARODY. The cartoon could not be viewed as a statement of facts, and in fact included a disclaimer that it was a parody.
The precedential SCOTUS case overruling it was on INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, the only cause of action where Falwell prevailed.
This has literally nothing to do with any torts related to voice misappropriation for commercial purposes. Nick likes lying about this but don't let him trick you.
