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.

[Unknown God]

I do not believe this is even possible just based on the facts of the case.
If the question "did copyright infringement happen in the underlying cases", can only be answered with "yes it did", then the subpoena must be granted.

And let's be real here, Ethan registered the copyright to make it 100% bulletproof, and those morons streamed the entirety of his work, largely uninterrupted and without transformative commentary.

There was copyright infringement, the subpoena MUST be granted.

Obviously there is always the possibility of an activist judge siding with the Free Palestslimes, but in that case Ethan would just appeal it.

"Come watch my pirate stream to make sure he doesn't get any money for his work" is what they fucking said. We all hate copyright but if this doesn't directly violate the rules it will be especially egregious even for an activist judge.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

"Come watch my pirate stream to make sure he doesn't get any money for his work" is what they fucking said. We all hate copyright but if this doesn't directly violate the rules it will be especially egregious even for an activist judge.

Oh it 100% is and I do not believe for a second that a judge charged with this matter will expose themselves by making an obviously false ruling like that.
The last thing a judge wants is to have their name on an overturned appeal that could be quoted for the next 100 years.

My legal question is rather this: What impact would the judge finding "no fair use" have on Denims' case? Could they bring this up and say "oh by the way, this judge already found that 'fair use' does not apply".

 

[Unknown God]

Oh it 100% is and I do not believe for a second that a judge charged with this matter will expose themselves by making an obviously false ruling like that.
The last thing a judge wants is to have their name on an overturned appeal that could be quoted for the next 100 years.

My legal question is rather this: What impact would the judge finding "no fair use" have on Denims' case? Could they bring this up and say "oh by the way, this judge already found that 'fair use' does not apply".

I really just think this series of questions is ultimately the judge saying tl;dr to the hundred pages of horseshit the reddit jannies filed, and she is instead saying "convince me within these parameters because no one's reading all that shit"

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I really just think this series of questions is ultimately the judge saying tl;dr to the hundred pages of horseshit the reddit jannies filed, and she is instead saying "convince me within these parameters because no one's reading all that shit"

Yep, she cut through all the bullshit.

These parallel cases that are currently all based on the same copyright infringement are weird, because for the motion to quash to be denied, all the judge has to do really is find that Ethan has a legit copyright case. The Jannies argue, basically in Denims' name, that her use of the videos is covered under fair use, and now the judge is considering deciding on that matter?

Like, that is just fucking weird. The Jannies should not even be able to raise that defense, only Denims can. The judge should not be able to rule on "fair use", because Denims is not a party to the case, and only she could raise the fair use defense.

It would be crazy to have a third party raise a "fair use" defense, in the name of an original infringer, and a judge making a factual finding that "what this third party, that is not party to this case, did in her streams is not fair use".

EDIT: If I was Denims' lawyer I would have serious concerns about a judge considering making a factual decision on "fair use" without even getting the chance to be heard and argue it.

 

[Pelican Bones]

EDIT: If I was Denims' lawyer I would have serious concerns about a judge considering making a factual decision on "fair use" without even getting the chance to be heard and argue it.

Even with Greer v Moon lasting 3000 years now I still can't get over the fact that contributory copyright infringement can even be a viable independent tort without first having a trial about the alleged direct infringement. It still seems preposterous. I mean, how can you have an accessory to murder charge without already having a convicted murderer somewhere?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

It still seems preposterous. I mean, how can you have an accessory to murder charge without already having a convicted murderer somewhere?

I'd say the point where you need to charge the accessory is when you charge the murderer.
If you have enough evidence to charge the one person, you can also charge those who helped.

Same logic applies for a civil case. If you sue a primary infringer, you can also sue those who contributed. (The more important question would be, "what is counts as contributory?)

The facts are largely the same, and only specific individual acts and intent will differ.
If we were to run the legal system as a type of "original infraction" snake that requires the primary case to always finish before charging lesser crimes, that would just not be practical given how long trials and appeals can take.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

Once again an activist judge is gearing up to let terrorist sympathizers off scot-free. There's no lolcow these fucks won't protect from consequences.

Activist judges don't bother asking if they can do something before doing it. This reads more like a judge realizing that a flaming bag of dogshit has been dumped onto the docket and is looking to get rid of it as quickly as possible so as not to endure years of legal shitflinging from both sides. It makes it a lot easier to go that route if both parties agree to the fact that it can be done because they have far less room for appeal.

 

[Pelican Bones]

I'd say the point where you need to charge the accessory is when you charge the murderer.
If you have enough evidence to charge the one person, you can also charge those who helped.

Same logic applies for a civil case. If you sue a primary infringer, you can also sue those who contributed. (The more important question would be, "what is counts as contributory?)

The facts are largely the same, and only specific individual acts and intent will differ.
If we were to run the legal system as a type of "original infraction" snake that requires the primary case to always finish before charging lesser crimes, that would just not be practical given how long trials and appeals can take.

I know that's how it works, I'm just saying it's preposterous. You charge someone for murder and someone for accessory. Fine. But if it was found to be self-defense in the first case, how could it be accessory in the second? How can someone contribute to copyright infringement without a judgement that the actual infringement ever took place?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

But if it was found to be self-defense in the first case, how could it be accessory in the second? How can someone contribute to copyright infringement without a judgement that the actual infringement ever took place?

If it is found to be self-defense, then they walk free.
If the copyright infringement is found to be fair use, the contributory infringement also goes away.

I don't see the problem.

It is all one case. This guy did it, and these guys helped. Do you want separate trials for every Nigger who drove the car, those who also fired their their Glocks with switches and extended mags into a house party because they weren't invited, but only AFTER the one guy who's bullet actually killed someone is sentenced first?

 

[Pelican Bones]

If it is found to be self-defense, then they walk free.
If the copyright infringement is found to be fair use, the contributory infringement also goes away.

I don't see the problem.

It is all one case. This guy did it, and these guys helped. Do you want separate trials for every Nigger who drove the car, those who also fired their their Glocks with switches and extended mags into a house party because they weren't invited, but only AFTER the one guy who's bullet actually killed someone is sentenced first?

If the guy gets convicted of accessory before the other guy gets freed for self-defense then that's an issue. I'll remind you that Null is being sued without any determination that the actual infringement actually occurred. Judicial efficiency doesn't negate how preposterous it is.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

If the guy gets convicted of accessory before the other guy gets freed for self-defense then that's an issue. I'll remind you that Null is being sued without any determination that the actual infringement actually occurred. Judicial efficiency doesn't negate how preposterous it is.

Well yeah, the Greer case is special.
Null is not actually liable at all and the case should be dismissed. (the full copy of the book is/was hosted on a google drive outside his control)

But that isn't what this case is about at all.
There is one big case that includes Denims and 1-10 unnamed parties that directly contributed by promoting the stream with the intention of harming the original author. There is a very big difference and it is not comparable at all. Greer hallucinated the legal basis and lied about the facts, while Ethan Klein presented actual proof to establish the merits of his case.

Those cases are not the same, not even remotely.

 

[Pelican Bones]

Well yeah, the Greer case is special.
Null is not actually liable at all and the case should be dismissed.

I would say I rest my case, but nevertheless...

But that isn't what this case is about at all.
There is one big case that includes Denims and 1-10 unnamed parties that directly contributed by promoting the stream with the intention of harming the original author. There is a very big difference and it is not comparable at all. Greer hallucinated the legal basis and lied about the facts, while Ethan Klein presented actual proof to establish the merits of his case.

Which case, out of all of this, has the judgement that the infringement occured?

Edit: Never mind. We are obviously arguing 2 different things.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Which case, out of all of this, has the judgement that the infringement occured?

Why would that be a requirement? It is a single case in which all parties to the supposed infringement are being sued.
The difference here is that Ethan is actually suing someone for the copyright infringement and is also suing other people in the same case for contributing.

Greer is suing Null for contributing, but not suing ANYONE for the actual infringement.
The cases are not the same.

I do not think an actual finding is required to sue contributory infringement, but the supposed infringer needs to be identified and part of the same action, otherwise its pointless.

EDIT:

Edit: Never mind. We are obviously arguing 2 different things.

I agree with you partially insofar as that the original infringer needs to be party to the same action for it to make sense.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

It does not happen often that I actually laugh out loud when reading a legal filing, but holy shit the Motion filed by Denim's lawyers is copium on a level that is uneblievable.

They actually file for summary judgement based on the affirmative defense of: FAIR USE

They claim, and I shit you not, that Ethan conceded in his complaint (at 70.o which I quote below) that Denims use was "highly transformative".

I had to actually open the complaint and look this up, because that seemed very unreasonable to me, considering the complaint is wherein Ethan accuses her of violating his copyright.

Here is that section they claim proves that Ethan agrees that Denim's use was highly transformative.
Copium level: Over 9000.

What the section below actually means it that if Denims had ONLY used those parts of the Nuke, and added her commentary, and uploaded ONLY those two things together: Nuke snip + Braindead OF Bimbo commentary = Transformative. Not her dead eye blank stare into the camera while the video plays that is 99% incomprehensible to her, only to have her 3 braincells triggered into reflexive defense of Hasan when a topic shows up where she knows the marching orders and what Hasan would say.

"Your honor, Denims did not harm Ethan because none of her viewers would have watched the original on the filthy jew channel anyway!" (Creatively paraphrased.)

It is insanely funny to see them quote the fair use standard, and then just blatantly misinterpret the facts.

lol, lmao even.
If that is your fucking defense, I hope you got a good insurance.

Trying to pretend it was a documentary to segway into "educational" arguments.

She used the entire fucking thing you dumb fucks. These lawyers must be milking her for all the money they can grab, because she is too retarded to understand this has a 0/1000000 chance to ever be a winning argument.

This argument is dead on arrival. She intentionally streamed it so people could watch it without giving Ethan views.
The purpose of her stream was market replacement.

I am still reading, so I'll attach the filing below.
Enjoy

 

[JT Smash: divorced & gay]

They claim, and I shit you not, that Ethan conceded in his complaint (at 70.o which I quote below) that Denims use was "highly transformative".

On what planet is merely watching someone else's content while staring and barely commenting on it "highly transformative"? Weren't there parts where she wasn't even in the streams because she went to take a shit or get food? Denims, please put down the crack pipe and get help.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

On what planet is merely watching someone else's content while staring and barely commenting on it "highly transformative"? Weren't there parts where she wasn't even in the streams because she went to take a shit or get food? Denims, please put down the crack pipe and get help.

Denims has actually the best fair use case.

Kasey (who already bent the knee) was literally just coughing, and Frogan was literally off cam multiple times.

Denims case is still shit.

 

[you_equipped_socks]

I honestly had thought Frogan would have bended the knee by now. She's lucky she'll just have to make an apology video like Kacey, if she was in her sweet Palestine a girl like her would have been stoned.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I honestly had thought Frogan would have bended the knee by now. She's lucky she'll just have to make an apology video like Kacey, if she was in her sweet Palestine a girl like her would have been stoned.

We do not know what the state of the Frogan case is, because there has not been a public filing in the case since August of last year.
Of all the people sued here she has been, funnily enough, the one who did the right thing and STFU.

 

[gaba pentin3493]

Do we know if this is accurate? If this is fake she basically auto-loses right

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

View attachment 8878616

Do we know if this is accurate? If this is fake she basically auto-loses right

It is entirely irrelevant, because it misrepresents the amount of actual commentary about content of the video.
They are also conflating several different categories to make it seem like she did "transform" the content.
1) Actual intelligent discussion of the content of the video she is playing
2) Braindead non-commentary blabbing about unrelated things
3) Paused

For fair use to apply she does not just have to pause the video now or then, she has to engage with the content and have a valid transformative opinion on the topic.
To criticize Ethan she does not have to play the entire video and then "pause" when she reaches a section where she wants to talk.

Transformative content is when you watch the video, make notes, rewatch sections, make detailed notes, record your reaction and commentary about the sections you want to comment on, cut together short sections of the original video with your commentary, upload the video. (Or only show the sections you want to talk about to a live audience and then go through your rebuttal/commentary live)

What Denims did, and regularly does, is to live watch the ENTIRE video without having ANY opinion or commentary prepared, and then struggle with having an intelligent rebuttal to points raised in the video.

Her use is 100% not fair use, and if an activist judge decides that it is, Ethan will go all the way to the supreme court to have them overturn the retarded decision.