While partly true, don't get it twisted. Hasan lives in luxury because his father was loaded.
Isn't this tantamount to evidence spoilation lmao
not really but kinda
I don't get it.it's increasingly clear he got the skulls himself, because more photos...
Didn't Hasan spend 9 hours reacting to it while his terrorist squad just restreamed it? Suing the roach would be insane because that's fair use.
How so? We're not streaming it live to thousands and claiming the intention was to deprive them of advertisement revenue. It's called an archive for a reason. Nobody's rushing to KF when some stupid video drops so they don't have to give the uploader a click dollar. This is such a far stretch.
I'm not buying this one either. The call was obviously not fraudulent but whether it came from mandatory reporters or Redditors is irrelevant. Someone called the CPS over a fucking joke about dog shit and likely his politics. Did he go to his synagogue, his therapist and his GP to talk about dog shit induced giardia? What relevance does mandatory reporting have here?
It's a table in their house and the box is very clearly labelled as skeletons. The narrative that they didn't know the box contained skulls and the team were shocked to open what they thought were "computer parts" in the studio is an obvious lie. There's a post earlier in the thread about it.
It wasn't a joke, it was a long narrative about how he thought his kid had contracted giardia from dog shit with stomach churning details around the consistency and smell of the kid's diarrhea, streamed to thousands, along with priors talking about how much dog shit there was everywhere. There's no evidence that the CPS call was made specifically to punish him for his politics, it's just a talking point Ethan finds useful. This is why every time this thread gets featured it gets flooded with people going "get them Ethan, they messed with your kids" because at this point, the one solitary CPS call was apparently made by a network of snarkers and leftist internet streamers.
It's funny in itself though.
When the Defendants all literally admit that they're maliciously infringing on the work in order to deprive the author of his exclusive distribution rights (i.e. "ethically" reviewing the Content Nuke by watching it on their channels instead) with minimal commentary, then its going to be very hard for them to satisfy the four factor test of 17 US 106, as if it wasn't super difficult for commentary channels to do that already.
Cool, they could call him a kike nigver and tell him to kill himself too, they still get fair use. Is there anything transformatove at all? Literally anything, like say, a single additional line, or an empty chair? Then it is a changed work. Even if they play the entire video in its entirety then do commentary afterwards, it is still fair use.
She looks way worse than that now, she fell of the rails hard. She destroyed her own career when she abandoned her online persona.
So I can upload the entirety of the Lord of The Rings Trilogy Extended Editions and as long as at some point I say one thing or have an image of a chair in the corner this is now fair use?
living up to your username, I see
That picture was suppose to be her at her "prime" but she always looked a bit "trashy". Her boobs is what drew most of her attention back then.
My basic understating is that it potentially entitles him to additional damages, whereas if it wasnt registered then he would only be entitled to lost revenue which may be difficult to prove given how ad systems on youtube and twitch work.
