TED Entertainment Inc. v. Alexandra Marwa Saber, Morgan Kamal Majed, and Kasey Caviness, California 2:25-cv-5564, 2:25-cv-5565,Missouri 4:25-cv-459 - Ethan Klein Suing three women and 10 redditors for Copyright Infringement.

[Irene and 22 others]

Is there a single reddit mod who doesn't molest children?

Yes, but only because some of them haven't found a second victim yet.

 

[MrMM]

We are coming up on the end of March and it reminded me that the six month lists should be getting tabulated.

I used to monitor the "Six-Month Lists" for the judges I was before (a report published by the federal judiciary's administrative office watching judges to see how long they take to rule on motions). Looks like the administrative office has been slacking and missed their September 2025 report, but regardless it is pressure on judges to try to be timely. Once we know the magistrate, we can get a sense for how backlogged they are and when we can expect a ruling.

Also I now realize we have known the magistrate the whole time, the consent to proceed before a magistrate back in January was just administrative box checking -- they've been dealing with Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim from the outset. Judge Kim seems reasonably good at clearing pending motions. You have to go back to the March 2024 report to see any matters appear under her name for having motions pending for six or more months.

Unfortunately after thinking about it further, the relevant Motion to Quash Subpoena will probably not qualify for the March 2026 report. With the motion filed on September 22, I think the original filing was just short of qualifying for the six month report anyway. Although they're generally called "Six-Month Lists", it's really more of a six-plus-one month model, where a motion isn't technically "pending" until like a month after filing. Which should put the CJRA deadline somewhere around April 22 -- after March 31.

But it would qualify for the September 2026 report. So I feel reasonably good that we should have a ruling by September 30, 2026. Which, lol. Hopefully the largely-clean reports signal that Judge Kim generally moves things along quickly.

 

[niggerfelon]

They're engagement bait.

It's like seeing an indian/asian try to follow a guide on how to gain subs. Somewhat entertaining, but you hide the posts of the channel on your feed after a while.

Engagement bait for. . . A retired individual with no video releases? I'd understand if it hypes up a video to get more views amd comments but there's no money to be made that way.

 

[KriegsZensur]

Engagement bait for. . . A retired individual with no video releases? I'd understand if it hypes up a video to get more views amd comments but there's no money to be made that way.

Bigger number, better person.

YouTube's version of izzat.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

there's no money to be made that way.

Bloat irrelevant updates by engagement farming topics with an online audience.
His claim to "lawyer relevance" is literally the only thing he got going for himself.
If he cannot recycle already beaten to death topics by using talking points others handily provided him with by scraping their videos, he would not be able to put out anything.


Look at those views, the "no update" Denims update was his most successfull video in weeks.
He is the Asian Nigger equivalent of a react channel trying to pretend it is doing original content.

 

[KriegsZensur]

Bloat irrelevant updates by engagement farming topics with an online audience.
His claim to "lawyer relevance" is literally the only thing he got going for himself.
If he cannot recycle already beaten to death topics by using talking points others handily provided him with by scraping their videos, he would not be able to put out anything.

View attachment 8745587
Look at those views, the "no update" Denims update was his most successfull video in weeks.
He is the Asian Nigger equivalent of a react channel trying to pretend it is doing original content.

It's literally using the format that a lot of streamers nowadays reference to as a meme, part of the criteria, from top op my head :

• Two words in the thumbnail, exclamation mark
• One face in thumbnail
• Yellow or red text
• Title/thumbnail are all hyperbolics that are in absolutist terms
• First two thirds of the video are summarizing the situation up to the update.

Some people are bearable and somewhat interesting in how they do it, some don't adhere to 1 or 2 of the criteria and are interesting as a result.
Most of it is predictable and content that wouldn't stand on its own, i.e. without the psychological trickery.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

It's literally using the format that a lot of streamers nowadays reference to as a meme, part of the criteria, from top op my head :

• Two words in the thumbnail, exclamation mark
• One face in thumbnail
• Yellow or red text
• Title/thumbnail are all hyperbolics that are in absolutist terms
• First two thirds of the video are summarizing the situation up to the update.

Some people are bearable and somewhat interesting in how they do it, some don't adhere to 1 or 2 of the criteria and are interesting as a result.
Most of it is predictable and content that wouldn't stand on its own, i.e. without the psychological trickery.

It is the type of content AI is reasonably good at reproducing, you just need to provide decent sources to scrape.
So you just read a couple of threads on KF, Reddit, 4Chan, then feed some existing videos with recent updates into it, generate a script and let AI read it for you.

I'd prefer an AI narrator over LUS because the faggot cannot even speak English properly.

 

[KriegsZensur]

It is the type of content AI is reasonably good at reproducing, you just need to provide decent sources to scrape.
So you just read a couple of threads on KF, Reddit, 4Chan, then feed some existing videos with recent updates into it, generate a script and let AI read it for you.

I'd prefer an AI narrator over LUS because the faggot cannot even speak English properly.

NotebookLM has an excellent "podcast" generator. You can even instruct the parts of your sources to highlight and ignore.

 

[Fred Fuckstone]

I stopped paying attention to this case six months ago, I'm guessing nothing has happened since? It got real old watching Nick glaze this whole thing and he stopped talking about it awhile ago.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I stopped paying attention to this case six months ago, I'm guessing nothing has happened since? It got real old watching Nick glaze this whole thing and he stopped talking about it awhile ago.

No progress, but all cases still open.
Waiting for the subpoena case to resolve.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

I stopped paying attention to this case six months ago, I'm guessing nothing has happened since? It got real old watching Nick glaze this whole thing and he stopped talking about it awhile ago.

Welcome to the legal process where nothing happens for months at a time until the next brief flurry of activity. Everyone involved is represented by an actual lawyer, so the likelihood of pro se retardation is severely diminished.

 

[DragoonSierra]

What does the Cox decision mean for the reddit jannies?

 

[AnOminous]

Lmao they're just getting fucked up the ass by this Jew.

 

[Harvey Danger]

What does the Cox decision mean for the reddit jannies?

Redditors might be the only people stupid enough to still violate the newly-narrowed scope of contributory liability. I don't know if jannies collectively count as a "service provider" or not; Reddit itself would, but fortunately Ethan sued the specific jannies, not their employer.

I don't think the jannies saying "go to a watch party, not Ethan's stream" can survive this test (from the ruling):

To establish that a provider intended its service to be used for infringement, a copyright owner must show one of two things. First, it can show that a party affirmatively “induc[ed]” the infringement. Ibid. Or, second, it can show that the party sold a service tailored to infringement.

Maybe things change when translating that from providers to individuals. I assume the test would stay substantially the same.

 

[Unknown God]

so the likelihood of pro se retardation is severely diminished.

True but then we have SmashJT and Ron Coleman, so have some faith.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

What does the Cox decision mean for the reddit jannies?

The entire Cox v. Sony case hinges (in my non-lawyer understanding) on Cox not actually contributing directly by providing a service aimed at or directly supporting the infringement.
(an internet provider offering the service of access to the internet)

That does not help the Jannies at all, it would likely rather harm them, since they did actively and directly promote the activities that did the active copyright infringing.
Cox v. Sony protects Reddit, especially since Reddit has properly honored DMCA requests sent by Ethan's lawyer aimed at taking down copies of his content, which were offered with the same intent of offering a market alternative.

Reddit is, unless they have directly supported the Jannies in some way despite knowing of their activity, completely in the clear.
The Jannies on the other hand are rather fucked, since the platform isn't responsible at all for user behavior, it means its all on the user.

EDIT: I find it immensely entertaining that the lawyer for the Jannies is actually informing the court of the decision. I do not think this will go as well as they think it will. The platform/provider being protected does not shield users advertising copyright infringement.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't think the jannies saying "go to a watch party, not Ethan's stream" can survive this test (from the ruling):

That's the fun part. This is one of the few bits of contributory infringement that survive Cox. They literally, actively, went out and told people "hey go infringe copyright here's where you can do it." The levels of stupidity there are over the top.

They're getting Coxed.

Reddit is, unless they have directly supported the Jannies in some way despite knowing of their activity, completely in the clear.

Arguably, even the 4free reddit mods are acting as agents of reddit, so respondeat superior may apply, but I wouldn't really bet on it.

EDIT: I find it immensely entertaining that the lawyer for the Jannies is actually informing the court of the decision.

It's actually an ethical rule that you have to do this. MRPC 3.3(a)(2) specifically requires you to disclose adverse precedent if you are aware of it.

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

[. . .]
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel[.]

In this case I'd argue it's mixed because the unanimous SCOTUS decision really trims the wings of contributory infringement, but still affirms that directly and deliberately encouraging infringement is a source of liability.

Also they have to know that the other side is bringing this up, so it is a competent move to try to get ahead of the other side bringing it up.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

It's actually an ethical rule that you have to do this. MRPC 3.3(a)(2) specifically requires you to disclose adverse precedent if you are aware of it.

That makes sense, I was thinking they were pointing it out in the hopes it helps their case.

That's the fun part. This is one of the few bits of contributory infringement that survive Cox. They literally, actively, went out and told people "hey go infringe copyright here's where you can do it."

The sub-reddit was literally a hub for posting copyright infringing material uploaded to 3rd party sites, with the expressed purpose of not giving the original creators views.

They not getting out of this.

 

[AnOminous]

That makes sense, I was thinking they were pointing it out in the hopes it helps their case.

I actually agree with that. Arguably, it does help them in that it significantly contracts contributory infringement. But it's also directly adverse in that it maintains the doctrine against exactly the behavior the predditors engaged in.

But it was still the right move to bring it up first.

 

[Potentially Criminal]

I find it immensely entertaining that the lawyer for the Jannies is actually informing the court of the decision. I do not think this will go as well as they think it will. The platform/provider being protected does not shield users advertising copyright infringement.

We have ethical obligations to inform the court if your position gets nuked by a subsequent ruling and we learn of it.