ugh that was a bit of a slog for sure
TLDR
1. My previous behaviour has nothing to do with this case so the judge must strike it. Even though it shows a repeat pattern of behaviour and abuse of the copyright system to punish people who mock me because it's reflects poorly it must be ignored.
2. I never gave You Tube permission to repost my videos in this suit so I will be taking action against them for violating my copyright.
3. Yes I did in fact say that Cretosis's video was transformation in my first pleading but I have since changed my mind and now say that it isn't so You Tube can't bring that up anymore because it hurts my case.
4. Creetosis uses every second of my content and thus it doesn't matter how transformative it was as it does replace my content in the market thus he automatically loses and I win a billion dollars.
5. many misspellings
6. He still wants discovery now now now!
7. Stabby has created a whole new way to categorize copyright infringement. I'm sure the judge will be grateful that Stabby did all his work for him determining that these video's are indeed Grade 1 infringements so maximum payout is required.
8. The court needs to be very weary (sic) of this case is it will set a massive president effecting Hollywood and million dollars actors if it gets dismissed. How...I really could not tell you.
9. The ninth circuit has already pretty much ruled that I win as they didn't toss out a very similar frivolous case in where I pull the exact same stunts when they had the chance. I see Mr Stabby has been reading the Greer case, probably not the best idea to mimic Russel there David. To be clear the 9th circuit court ruled that David could proceed to try to prove infringement on one video and tossed out the rest of his garbage. Not that they agreed with him.
My summary thoughts:
David is reaching pretty far overall arguing that his past behaviour has no bearing on his intentions, that You Tube is breaking his copyright by including his videos in their motions to dismiss and thus it is not a legal motion and needs to be tossed out. That he never published his videos according to...his ass which is where he seems to get this idea from and that his brand new copyright infringement grading system (which he also gets from his ass) which he presents to the judge as fait acompli, shows that in no way no matter not a chance in hell is this video transformative (even though David admitted it was transformative in his first complaint) so he wins. End of story. The judge must toss the motion to dismiss and summarily award David the full amount he is asking for or it will set a dangerous precedent that will destroy Hollywood.
some choice quotes:
There is no need to bring up my past in order to stir up resentment against me. Such evidence is redundant of the much more probative and direct evidence of fair use. If there is no direct evidence of fair use, then the reaction streams do not suddenly become fair use simply because of these past rulings
In the instant case, my prior admission that the streams were highly transformative was a
mixed statement of fact and law, not merely a statement of pure fact. This means that my
admissions, to the extent they involve legal conclusions, are not binding on the Court in the first instance
Applying these rules to the instant case, the original video does not qualify as “published.” They are merely “performed” on my YouTube channel, not licsensed (sic) or sold
But even if the defendants still wish to hold out for a finding of neutrality, they must actually prove that the use of the entire work literally every single last second of it was not only reasonable, but actually necessary to achieve the desired result.
When I say 'market substitute,' it's important to understand I'm not just talking
about people hearing your review of my video and not wanting to waste their time
watching my video because they know it's going to suck. That's not a market
substitute. That's market destruction. That crushes the market for my videos. Like,
there is no longer any demand for my videos.
