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.

Gobermental Supervisor said:

@MrMM I had been wondering ever since this lawsuit was filed how it is possible Denims is this retarded and incapable of understanding that she fucked up.
But after reading that subreddit I have realized that all of Ethan's haters are lobotomized. I know FULLY understand how Denims can still live in her imaginary lalaland.

The one person in that thread who had a realistic take on the hearing is getting downvoted to shits.

Click to expand...

Yeah I mean, I knew the Hasan community and its orbiters attracted the dumbest rocks on the planet, but I always kind of assumed it was just like "i don't bother to care i'm thirteen years old and angry at my parents" people rather than "i am intentionally misinformed, an adult and angry at the world" before some of this.

The statements are not relevant. There's precedent about this. It's just a red herring Ethan could use for his petty shit. They can say whatever they want but the court have to find that they failed the four factors of fair use for Ethan to win.

Click to expand...

^what an absolute retard says when they don't understand shit. The statements about stealing views definitely impact factors 1 and 4.

Gobermental Supervisor said:

@MrMM I had been wondering ever since this lawsuit was filed how it is possible Denims is this retarded and incapable of understanding that she fucked up.
But after reading that subreddit I have realized that all of Ethan's haters are lobotomized. I know FULLY understand how Denims can still live in her imaginary lalaland.

The one person in that thread who had a realistic take on the hearing is getting downvoted to shits.


View attachment 8888966

Click to expand...

In general redditors is basically hive of the midwits. This is proven by going into any reddit where you have a professional training or skill in and see how every single upvoted thing is the most retarded thing you've ever read written in the most confident tone.

Gobermental Supervisor said:

@MrMM I had been wondering ever since this lawsuit was filed how it is possible Denims is this retarded and incapable of understanding that she fucked up.
But after reading that subreddit I have realized that all of Ethan's haters are lobotomized. I know FULLY understand how Denims can still live in her imaginary lalaland.

The one person in that thread who had a realistic take on the hearing is getting downvoted to shits.


View attachment 8888966

Click to expand...

Reading anything on reddit is surreal. This guy is obviously right and more knowledgeable than 99.9% of the tards he is addressing but he feels the need to suck up and apologize every step of the way, to make sure everyone knows he is as much of a faggot as every other user, and it's still futile because he is saying things they don't like, so he is still a pariah no matter how many cocks he has sucked that week. Fall in line or get purged, no ifs ands or buts.

toffle said:

every single upvoted thing is the most retarded thing you've ever read written in the most confident tone.

Click to expand...

I find it funny how this reminds me of AI. The old NPC meme is the most accurate piece of satire ever created.

Gobermental Supervisor said:

@MrMM I had been wondering ever since this lawsuit was filed how it is possible Denims is this retarded and incapable of understanding that she fucked up.
But after reading that subreddit I have realized that all of Ethan's haters are lobotomized. I know FULLY understand how Denims can still live in her imaginary lalaland.

The one person in that thread who had a realistic take on the hearing is getting downvoted to shits.


View attachment 8888966

Click to expand...

God I hate reddit so much

MrMM said:

^what an absolute retard says when they don't understand shit. The statements about stealing views definitely impact factors 1 and 4.

Click to expand...

It is especially funny because they completely misread how the law works.
"Fair Use" is a defense, and the defendant has to show that under the four factors their use of the works can be considered fair use.

Funnily enough the standard applied for a copyright case to survive outright dismissal is the same "prima facie" standard.
So by moving onto the affirmative defense of "Fair Use", Denims has conceded that Ethan does have, on the face of it (prima facie), a legit case, but claims that her use is legal because of fair use.

If the underlying copyright case is legit, regardless of its legal outcome, then it requires some VERY strong arguments why parties to that lawsuit should be allowed to retain their anonymity.

There are two factors that I think really fuck the Jannie's case.
1) Timing
2) Intent

Timing: They advertised the infringing streams beforehand, made a list of alternative locations to watch. Despite knowing, or being reasonably expected to know, that none of those pretty much simultaneous re-streams could be legal. Everyone understands that re-broadcasting of live events without a license is not legal. If they had instead created a playlist of reactions, created by people in the days following the stream, which do not re-broadcast the entirety of the stream but react to specific parts and offer commentary on those parts, that would have been entirely different.

Intent: They literally said the quiet part out loud. Watch it elsewhere to not give Ethan views.


There is no fucking way the Jannies can claim fair use, or any other defense really.
The market replacement was the INTENT behind promoting these other streams.


EDIT: Late edit, but better than double posting.
Conspiracy theories about why recording the hearing was not allowed!
Damn Jews!


Also very curious posts on that subreddit.
They appear to not have learned that defaming a litigious millionaire is not a good idea.

Gobermental Supervisor said:

There is no fucking way the Jannies can claim fair use, or any other defense really.
The market replacement was the INTENT behind promoting these other streams.

Click to expand...

I won't play full devil's advocate, because redditors deserve neither representation nor rights. But I wonder if there's a hair-splitting attempt to be made here.

Let's pretend Denims' streams are usually not copyright infringement. Pretend the idiot does a reasonably transformative job, offering substantive critiques, etc; enough to clear fair use. The redditors could argue that they expected Denims to be a responsible streamer (stop laughing), and so linking to her stream was not intended to contribute to copyright infringement. The fact that Denims' stream ultimately failed fair use could be claimed as a "surprise" to the reddit mods, and not an expected outcome when they advertised it before the infringing stream happened.

Linking to legal content is not illegal. Calling it a way to view the Nuke without giving Ethan money would then be a form of advertisement, truthfully pointing out that there are legal ways to view the Nuke's contents without rewarding Ethan. It might be analogous to saying, "if you don't want to give Disney money to watch the latest Star Wars movie, wait until it's showing on cable for free".

This all hinges on expectations of Denims being a responsible adult and not a dead-eyed moron, but that can be litigated in court. With everything else the mods and Denims have said and done, I don't think they have earned plausible deniability. But they can argue it, at least.

Harvey Danger said:

Let's pretend Denims' streams are usually not copyright infringement.

Click to expand...

If her usual streams were not also blatant copyright infringement, then yes.
But they are. Denims is known for low effort streaming content, where she often starts her stream with a countdown screen while re-broadcasting a TV station news broadcast like CNN, NBC or the likes.

But let's cut out Denims and pretend this about a streamer who usually creates good transformative content, and for some reason that streamer fucks up, this ONCE. I guess in that case it would be a fair excuse to say "we expected content that was covered under fair use". But that would be more of an argument for damages/punishment, after you already admit to the contributory infringement, but still try to excuse the mistake.

EDIT: I fully believe that there is no world on which the immediate re-streaming of new, previously unseen content, can be considered fair use.
There should always be a certain gap between the premier of content and when people start releasing their reaction/commentary, because I believe that truly fair use covered reaction content requires that actual work be put into transforming the content. Just replaying the full thing and offering occasional off the cuff comments and arguing with your viewers does NOT fulfill those requirements.

Harvey Danger said:

Let's pretend Denims' streams are usually not copyright infringement. Pretend the idiot does a reasonably transformative job, offering substantive critiques, etc; enough to clear fair use. The redditors could argue that they expected Denims to be a responsible streamer (stop laughing), and so linking to her stream was not intended to contribute to copyright infringement. The fact that Denims' stream ultimately failed fair use could be claimed as a "surprise" to the reddit mods, and not an expected outcome when they advertised it before the infringing stream happened.

Click to expand...

Right so this would get at the merits of the knowledge requirement for contributory infringement. There's a world where this is where things ultimately land, but we are not yet at that stage. We are simply at a subpoena challenge that is challenging whether H3 has made a prima facie case (a case on its face, a case that can be rebutted), which would merit granting the subpoena to attempt to identify the anonymous actors.

The mods posted "Hey everyone, we’ve seen a lot of comments about wanting to watch the nuke without showing support for H3". Of course statements can have multiple meanings (a classic). But making a prima facie case doesn't require dispelling all alternative readings. And here, the most straightforward read of the statement is one that lends itself to Ethan's case. Thus, a prima facie case has been made, the subpoena can be granted to attempt to unmask the mods, and the parties can fight the merits once discovery is available.

Harvey Danger said:

Linking to legal content is not illegal. Calling it a way to view the Nuke without giving Ethan money would then be a form of advertisement, truthfully pointing out that there are legal ways to view the Nuke's contents without rewarding Ethan. It might be analogous to saying, "if you don't want to give Disney money to watch the latest Star Wars movie, wait until it's showing on cable for free"..

Click to expand...

The mods are perfectly able to make this argument once discovery is opened following identification and service of the mods. Currently there are no facts available showing that the mods thought the content would be fair use. The facts available are that they made statements about watching the content without supporting h3.

To be precise, there are declarations by the Does about their intent, but I think it would be wrong for the court to allow them to use their anonymity as a shield (H3 can't seek discovery/depose) and a sword (the mods can put whatever bullshit they want in a declaration). I think this would more aptly be ruled upon based solely on the content of the complaint (a la a rule 12(b)(6) standard). And I think the judge should reject such efforts -- the facts relevant to the prima facie case are those in Ethan's complaint, not extra facts the defendants want to bring in to argue the merits.

ETA: I do wonder if the respective lawyers for the parties read this thread. I guess obviously Leah does based on the declarations. I'm curious if Rom does as well. Rom if you're reading this, consider paying for a transcript to preserve your argument that the contributory infringement claim also covers the inducement of snark reddit users, since your opposition at pages 22-23 is actually weaker on this than I thought and Leah may have had a point when she said what she said to the Judge yesterday. Your heading is "The H3Snark Mods Induced Denims’ Infringement", but your actual argument is that the mods induced users of the subreddit to view the infringing content created by Denims. That much is clear from your complaint, but in my opinion you screwed up in your opposition and muddied the waters. Do it for your case because you want to preserve the issue and do it for me because I want to get the transcript.

ETA2: Rom/Ethan, this is not legal advice, I'm not your lawyer.

Maraschino said:

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

Click to expand...

Guess what? If it's all of that shit you automatically always lose. Just sitting there and grunting like a stupid whore every few minutes does not make it transformative.

Gobermental Supervisor said:

It is especially funny because they completely misread how the law works.
"Fair Use" is a defense, and the defendant has to show that under the four factors their use of the works can be considered fair use.

Click to expand...

It's specifically an "affirmative defense," and that means that unlike most defenses, it requires the defendant to prove that it applies.

Gobermental Supervisor said:

Intent: They literally said the quiet part out loud. Watch it elsewhere to not give Ethan views.

Click to expand...

They openly stated their intention to harm the plaintiff financially.

Usually this would be incredibly difficult to prove. They hit the fourth factor, often the most important, which is market impact on the affected property. How could you usually establish this? By mind-reading? No, you don't have to, they openly boasted that their intent was to cause financial harm to the plaintiff by impacting the market value of his copyrighted, registered work.

Very few defendants are that utterly stupid.

The Jannies have graciously decided to order a transcript for us.
It won't contain anything we have not mentioned yet, but always nice for archival purposes.

Let's hope it won't take too long.

MrMM said:

Just now submitted. They went for roughly 28 minutes.

Click to expand...

Thank you for taking notes. I wish I could have listened in when it went down

Gobermental Supervisor said:

The Jannies have graciously decided to order a transcript for us.
It won't contain anything we have not mentioned yet, but always nice for archival purposes.

Let's hope it won't take too long.

Click to expand...

Thanks for transcript.

Transcript will be publicly released in July, until then someone has to buy it.
I don't think its worth throwing the money at it, we did not miss anything.

Maybe one of the parties will disseminate it via social media somewhere.
Finger's crossed.

The statements are not relevant. There's precedent about this. It's just a red herring Ethan could use for his petty shit. They can say whatever they want but the court have to find that they failed the four factors of fair use for Ethan to win.

Click to expand...

Giving statements such as "I am restreaming this to deprive Ethan of revenue" and other similar points is the crux of the entire litigation.
Fucking redditors man.

Gobermental Supervisor said:

They appear to not have learned that defaming a litigious millionaire is not a good idea.

Click to expand...

Defaming a litigious Jewish millionaire adds a 4x danger value.

Transcript might be out .
Evidence-lus current video

Terrifik said:

Transcript might be out .
Evidence-lus current video

https://youtu.be/NO_dz5Xb2dw?si=-Fi6ruF0-P7Bhg7J

Click to expand...

He might have bought it, it is not publicly available on Courtlistener yet. (But anyone can purchase it from the transcriber)

But as I said, the money is wasted, we already had people watch the hearing and summarize.
The transcript is only really useful for archival purposes.

Ralph's Unfinished Church said:

https://old.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/1szdmde/ethan_wins_against_the_h3_snark_mods_their_motion/oj0yj7f/

Apparently this means the mods will now have to be unmasked by reddit and discord so they can be served. TOTAL JANNY DEATH!

Click to expand...

How are the snark and Hassan reddits taking it?