Ethan Ralph illegally files DMCA takedown notice

WeWuzFinns said:
It's streaming technology has been partly developed by Xander. Also having to change platform is admission of defeat.
Click to expand...
I understand your arguments, my blinking friend. On the other hand, getting into legal slap fights with an avatar of Nurgle is a huge waste of time and money, both resources Null is supposedly short on.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Snappy Jappy, REGENDarySumanai, Shaka Brah and 1 other person
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Smith Banquod, AltisticRight, make_it_so and 5 others
Roman Gunt Guard said:
Meanwhile over on Flamenco's Server:
View attachment 2058287

Here is the video green danger posted:

View attachment 2058290
Click to expand...
And some more:
1617567682430.png
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: GreeneCoDeputy, Haru Okumura, TVStactic and 16 others
Stasi said:
I think from h3h3 to Akilah/Sargon we've seen the concept of fair use is pretty broad and the stream was almost certainly fair use, doesn't matter if its Patreon content or not.

Ethan more likely than not knows this and is just being a nigger exploiting Youtube's busted DMCA system.
Click to expand...
Back when Ralph flagged down Godwinson, PPP, and Null on DLive for showing his paywalled content, he asked Nick Rekieta for his opinion and Nick told him there's no case law to support the "putting stuff behind a paywall eliminates Fair Use", and in fact the current case law would point to there being no legal difference between a paywall or not for it.

EDIT: Just for clarification, this is what Rackets said to me in a DM on the topic of paywalls when I asked him, but he did clarify a bit when Ralph asked.
1617569969454.png
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Haru Okumura, AltisticRight, Cow Poly and 17 others
Spectre_06 said:
Back when Ralph flagged down Godwinson, PPP, and Null on DLive for showing his paywalled content, he asked Nick Rekieta for his opinion and Nick told him there's no case law to support the "putting stuff behind a paywall eliminates Fair Use", and in fact the current case law would point to there being no legal difference between a paywall or not for it.
Click to expand...
Probably didn't need a lawyer for that Ralph. If you think about it, with the exception of shit like youtube, everything is paywalled content - movies, music, TV shows, games etc. I guess Ralph's tiny pig brain can't comprehend something that's obvious to the rest of us.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Littlest Shitlord, Pomme Poire Peche, WWE Champion and 9 others
loyalislickspittle.png
the ralphacel loyalists think that false flagging is actually pretty based, the context of this is him saying ralph wins even though hes a hypocrite because he was successful in minorly inconveniencing josh in exchange for what was left of his pathetic "dignity" and having to publiclly bend the knee to null and kiss the ring to avoid court.

edit just one sperg i know its just depressing to think ralph could actually just rape a child in a killstream live and a guntlicker would defend it as based and tradpilled or some horse shit
 
  • Lunacy
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: GreeneCoDeputy, not william stenchever, TwoDollarPeePeePooPoo and 12 others
Spectre_06 said:
Back when Ralph flagged down Godwinson, PPP, and Null on DLive for showing his paywalled content, he asked Nick Rekieta for his opinion and Nick told him there's no case law to support the "putting stuff behind a paywall eliminates Fair Use", and in fact the current case law would point to there being no legal difference between a paywall or not for it.

EDIT: Just for clarification, this is what Rackets said to me in a DM on the topic of paywalls when I asked him, but he did clarify a bit when Ralph asked.
View attachment 2058676
Click to expand...
It sounds like Rackets is referring to the "effect on the market" test when determining fair use. There's a faint argument that can be made that by showing segments of a paywalled stream, that content's market value is impacted. However, a couple issues come into play, in my mind. (warning: IANAL)

  • Criticism and ridicule are in fact transformative uses, which is why movie reviews that show bits and pieces of a movie and shit are allowed to exist. This use is given a lot of leeway, in fact. Nick says that the transformative use of Ralph's paywalled content would likely be given a lot more consideration than any possible negative impact to the revenue from Ralph's paywalled stream, and I get the suspicion that the courts would agree.
  • Hughes vs. Benjamin, the lawsuit that Sargon of Akkad won and got attorney fees for, introduced some particularly interesting case law: The judge held that Sargon's use of Akilah's video did not negatively impact Akilah's video's market value because Sargon and Akilah have very different audiences. I get the suspicion that the same could be argued in this instance, since Ralph and Null's audiences are at each other's throats.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Rabid Northman, beautiful person, Your Bud and 6 others
Is there anything else to say except that Ralph is a man who makes a living - well that's questionable - by laughing at people online, but acts like a stricken animal whenever someone so much as giggles about his gunt and his entourage of oddballs and sex offenders.

I'd say it's nice to know it's getting to him, but seeing his face drop whenever someone mentions any of the embarrassing things he's done in the last year while he's streaming made that fact obvious already.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: SargonF00t, Kulmeister, AmateurComedicTaxidermist and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back