- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Skitzocow David Anthony Stebbins / Acerthorn / stebbinsd / fayettevillesdavid - Litigious autist, obese livestreamer, elder abuser, violent schizo, ladyboy importer, hot dog enjoyer, wereturkey.
- Thread starter Mister Mint
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
Which would fail. In Forma Pauperis already has increased filing standards and review.
You do not have an absolute right to waste everybody's time and weaponize the court against your online enemies. Government Fees such as court filing exist to put a legitimate barrier in place to frivolous behaviour.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
Well that document was a lot easier to follow. I wish David could learn to write one like that, but no one on Reddit would take the time to teach him step by step.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
What a brain-dead turkey gobbling retard. He's literally claiming the allegedly infringed materials are somehow irrelevant to fair use, which has to be one of the most brain-damaged arguments even he has ever made. I also don't even get his incomprehensible argument the court shouldn't hear the dispositive motion first (never mind you can't strike a motion anyway as Google points out).
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
I get the impression that Google's lawyers are quite enjoying writing those documents. I suspect 99% of their caseload is interminable complex litigation against other competent lawyers, and it's not often that they get to give both barrels to an absolute retard. You can detect their glee in their writing, just as you can detect the impotent rage in Dave's.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2022
Not everyday you get to serve court papers to an animal.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
I'm certain nobody who has contact with Stabbins enjoys it. I remain confused as to why Google to date has not simply perma banned him from Youtube? His constant abuse of the DMCA system and harrasement of others would seem to be sufficient. Yeah he'll sue them. But hes gonna do that anyway.
MongolianMongoose
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2023
TLDR I found six anonymous questions on avvo that were probably posted by Acerthorn which led me to finding a claim he had against Twitch with the Copyright Claims Board.
Avvo is anonymous so there's way to know which posts were made by who. I searched some common phrases from Acerthorn's lawsuits and found posts that are probably him.
First 3 are boring
The last 3 I'm confident are by him. The final one directly references his case against Google. The OP replies in the comment section.
The case went nowhere after Stebbins' initial claim. Acerthorn did make sure to amend his complaint to change, among other things, his request for relief from "between $750 and $5,000" to "$5,000" flat. That's quite modest coming from someone that normally sues for millions and billions of dollars.
The case was dismissed after a failure to service.
I've preserved docket 5's amended complaint below.
Avvo is anonymous so there's way to know which posts were made by who. I searched some common phrases from Acerthorn's lawsuits and found posts that are probably him.
First 3 are boring
If someone obtains possession of a copyrighted work by illegally downloading it without paying for it first (e.g. piracy), and then proceeds to create a work based on that work that he believes is fair use (e.g. a review), will the defense of fair use be automatically precluded on the grounds that he obtained the content illegally? Or will the Four Factors test for fair use still be applicable, even if the content was stoleN?
If your thumb slips while holding your phone and you accidentally take a selfie of yourself, can you still claim the copyright to that selfie, provided that you were making a face in that shot that could otherwise be said to satisfy the "miminum creative spark" requirement for copyright, had that same face been part of an intentional selfie?
Bear in mind that, in this scenario, the selfie (that is to say ... the fixation into a tangible medium of expression) was still taken BY the author, even if he didn't mean to do it. So would this still satisfy the "fixation" requirement in 17 USC § 101?
Bear in mind that, in this scenario, the selfie (that is to say ... the fixation into a tangible medium of expression) was still taken BY the author, even if he didn't mean to do it. So would this still satisfy the "fixation" requirement in 17 USC § 101?
When a plaintiff files a complaint, they must allege sufficient facts. This means they cannot simply sue the defendant for "copyright infringement;" they have to state "the plaintiff owns the copyright with the USCO registration number XXXXXXXX. On this date, the defendant posted a clip from that copyrighted work on this webpage."
If the defendant raises an affirmative defense (e.g. fair use, or a challenge to the validity of the copyright under 17 USC § 410(c)), is he required to likewise state sufficient facts in his Answer to Complaint? Or can he just say "the copyright is invalid" and that's good enough at the pleading stage?
If the defendant raises an affirmative defense (e.g. fair use, or a challenge to the validity of the copyright under 17 USC § 410(c)), is he required to likewise state sufficient facts in his Answer to Complaint? Or can he just say "the copyright is invalid" and that's good enough at the pleading stage?
9th Circuit only, please.
The second factor of fair use discusses whether the copyrighted work is fiction or non-fiction. However, many people on the Internet have become famous by portraying highly-stylized, bordering on caricature, versions of themselves while reviewing various works of art. James Rolfe and his character "the Angry Video Game Nerd" (or AVGN for short) and Doug Walker and his character "the Nostalgia Critic" are two of the most famous examples.
While these people often engage in extreme and outrageous behavior (including screaming at the top of their lungs, and sometimes literally defecating on the game cartridges), it is clear that the overall opinions being espoused by these characters (e.g. that these movies and games are terrible) are the genuine opinions of the real-life people playing these roles, not just made-up opinions assigned to the fictional characters.
If anyone used any of these videos without authorization, how would the 2nd factor weigh? Would it weigh against fair use because of the hyper stylization? Or would it weigh in favor of fair use because it's just that person's real-life opinions?
The second factor of fair use discusses whether the copyrighted work is fiction or non-fiction. However, many people on the Internet have become famous by portraying highly-stylized, bordering on caricature, versions of themselves while reviewing various works of art. James Rolfe and his character "the Angry Video Game Nerd" (or AVGN for short) and Doug Walker and his character "the Nostalgia Critic" are two of the most famous examples.
While these people often engage in extreme and outrageous behavior (including screaming at the top of their lungs, and sometimes literally defecating on the game cartridges), it is clear that the overall opinions being espoused by these characters (e.g. that these movies and games are terrible) are the genuine opinions of the real-life people playing these roles, not just made-up opinions assigned to the fictional characters.
If anyone used any of these videos without authorization, how would the 2nd factor weigh? Would it weigh against fair use because of the hyper stylization? Or would it weigh in favor of fair use because it's just that person's real-life opinions?
Perhaps the easiest way to prove that a DMCA Takedown was knowingly fraudulent is when you never used any material that is copyrighted by the issuer in the first instance, such as the case described in this video: https://youtu.be/xMIOZEMKXVU
However, even if you manage to win such a lawsuit, the remedies in § 512(f) are limited only to actual damages, which are often very low.
But could you potentially also get prospective injunctive relief, ordering the defendant, not simply to cease and desist from issuing knowingly fraudulent DMCA takedowns, but to stop issuing DMCA takedowns altogether? In future, anytime the defendant believes the plaintiff has infringed on their copyright, they must go straight to suing the plaintiff, and all the complexity, expense, and (most importantly) due process for the plaintiff, that entails.
This isn't a constitutional right. You have the right to court access, but not to issue DMCA takedowns. You presumably have the plaintiff's name and address from the very lawsuit that resulted in the injunction, so you don't even need a Counter-Notice to get that information. So there's no constitutional violations here.
Would that be allowed?
However, even if you manage to win such a lawsuit, the remedies in § 512(f) are limited only to actual damages, which are often very low.
But could you potentially also get prospective injunctive relief, ordering the defendant, not simply to cease and desist from issuing knowingly fraudulent DMCA takedowns, but to stop issuing DMCA takedowns altogether? In future, anytime the defendant believes the plaintiff has infringed on their copyright, they must go straight to suing the plaintiff, and all the complexity, expense, and (most importantly) due process for the plaintiff, that entails.
This isn't a constitutional right. You have the right to court access, but not to issue DMCA takedowns. You presumably have the plaintiff's name and address from the very lawsuit that resulted in the injunction, so you don't even need a Counter-Notice to get that information. So there's no constitutional violations here.
Would that be allowed?
There's a work that I have registered with the Copyright Office. Some troll took a screenshot from that work and used it as his Youtube channel icon. It wasn't registered within 3 months of publication, so in order to get statutory damages, the registration has to predate the infringement.
The troll's use of the icon is ongoing. He is still using it to this day, as Google has refused to take it down. The DMCA takedown does indeed post-date the registration. However, there is a possibility that the initial infringement (where the troll actually UPLOADED the icon, rather then actually running his channel with this icon in perpetuity) might have happened before the registration.
Because the infringement is ongoing, can I still get statutory damages for his continued and perpetual USE of the icon, even if I can't get them for his initial uploading thereof?
The troll's use of the icon is ongoing. He is still using it to this day, as Google has refused to take it down. The DMCA takedown does indeed post-date the registration. However, there is a possibility that the initial infringement (where the troll actually UPLOADED the icon, rather then actually running his channel with this icon in perpetuity) might have happened before the registration.
Because the infringement is ongoing, can I still get statutory damages for his continued and perpetual USE of the icon, even if I can't get them for his initial uploading thereof?
The last 3 I'm confident are by him. The final one directly references his case against Google. The OP replies in the comment section.
With the case number he provided we can find Stebbins v. Twitch Interactive, Inc.
| 1 | Claim | David A Stebbins | 07/19/2022 |
| 2 | Request for Leave to Amend Claim | David A Stebbins | 07/19/2022 |
| 3 | Request for Leave to Amend Claim | David A Stebbins | 08/03/2022 |
| 4 | Order Granting Leave to Amend | Copyright Claims Board | 08/03/2022 |
| 5 | Amended Claim | David A Stebbins | 08/03/2022 |
| 6 | Notice of Compliance and Direction to Serve | Copyright Claims Board | 09/19/2022 |
| 7 | Service Packet | Copyright Claims Board | 09/19/2022 |
| 8 | Waiver of Service | Copyright Claims Board | 09/19/2022 |
| 9 | Order Dismissing Claim | Copyright Claims Board | 12/21/2022 |
The case went nowhere after Stebbins' initial claim. Acerthorn did make sure to amend his complaint to change, among other things, his request for relief from "between $750 and $5,000" to "$5,000" flat. That's quite modest coming from someone that normally sues for millions and billions of dollars.
The case was dismissed after a failure to service.
I've preserved docket 5's amended complaint below.
There is a Twitch user who currently goes by the username jelmerve334. You can find his account by going to the URL of www.twitch.tv/jelmerv334.
On or around March 20, 2022, I noticed that he was using my copyrighted Channel Icon #6 as his channel icon without my authorization, and so on March 20, 2022, I issued a DMCA takedown to Twitch asking for it to be taken down. However, Twitch did not take the infringement down. They replied to my DMCA Takedown Notice and asked that I provide proof that I actually own the copyright to this icon.
This is not a valid request. 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)-(vi) sets forth six things that a DMCA Takedown Notice must include. I included all six of these things and can easily provide proof thereof once this case gets underway. At no point does the DMCA require me to provide proof of copyright ownership when I issue a DMCA Takedown Notice. The law does not entitle the ISP to request additional details, other than those set forth in § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)-(vi), to verify an otherwise statutorily-compliant takedown notice.
It was not until May 10, 2022 that it was finally taken down. This means that Twitch allowed the act of infringement to continue for a total of 51 days.
This unreasonable delay in processing the DMCA takedown is, in my opinion, grounds for a loss of safe harbor. To qualify for safe harbor, Twitch must "act expeditiously to remove or disable access to"the infringing material upon receiving a statutorily-compliant DMCA takedown notice. The keyword, here, is "expeditiously," an important qualifier which Twitch has utterly failed to comply with.
There is no fair use defense applicable here. The individual infringer did not transform my icon in any way shape or form. He was just using it for his own channel. That is copyright infringement at its most blatant.
Nor is it likely that Twitch can successfully argue that my copyright is invalid, because I have a valid copyright registration. Unless they can prove that I committed actual fraud and/or failed to disclose a lack of originality to the Copyright Office when I applied for registration (which they will almost certainly not be able to do), I am still entitled to proceed on an infringement claim.
So safe harbor is Twitch's last bastion of hope for avoiding liability in this case. So the question is ... did Twitch act expeditiously? That, in turn, begs the question: Is 51 days (aka more than 1½ months) sufficiently expeditious in this case?
While there is no bright line rule for what counts as expeditious, this research paper sets out what I consider to be a pretty fair 3-prong test: http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal Issues/Volume 26/Issue 2/Weinstein.pdf
I plan to use that test when I litigate this matter.
Twitch almost certainly has an up-to-date system for receiving and processing DMCA takedowns. So that is a point against them.
The second prong sets forth sub-factors such as "whether the service provider had to consult with an attorney about the notification; whether the notification was for material that the service provider was already made aware of and known to be infringing, which it could remove without consulting legal counsel; and the adequacy of the notification."
Twitch didn't HAVE to consult with an attorney on this matter. Just because it took the advice of counsel for them to finally get off their butts and do their jobs, doesn't mean it was required. After all, there was absolutely no defense the individual infringer could possibly have raised in defense of this infringement. So anyone who was adequately trained to process DMCA takedowns would not need to consult with an attorney to know that this was blatant infringement.
Although I concede that Twitch likely didn't know about the infringement until I issued the DMCA takedown notice, once they had that notice, they had plenty of time to respond.
Lastly, the adequacy of the notification is not in dispute. I did everything the DMCA required me to do. I am not required to show proof of copyright ownership at the DMCA Takedown stage. Only when I file suit am I required to provide a copyright registration (which creates a statutory presumption of copyright ownership and validity anyway).
I would also add one more sub-factor to this second prong: The size of the DMCA Takedown notice. For example, in this article ... https://www.internetandtechnologylaw.com/the-complicated-relationshipbetween- dmca-takedown-notices-and-the-word-expeditious/ ... a case is mentioned whereby a 3½ week turnaround period was deemed "expeditious," but only because the takedown notice in question contained a list of 170 infringing articles.
However, such a sub-factor also weighs against Twitch in this case, as the operative takedown notice in this case requested the removal of only a single item. So overall, the second prong of this test will weigh against Twitch.
The third prong is easily against Twitch as well. It would have given Twitch no burden whatsoever - let alone an undue one - to taking the content down within hours, or at the very most 1-2 days, of receiving the DMCA Takedown.
So all three prongs of this proposed test weigh against Twitch taking any more than 1-2 days to process the takedown.
I therefore ask for statutory damages of $5,000, not only to compensate me for the infringement of my copyright, but also to send a message to ISPs in the future not to give copyright holders the run-around when they issue statutorily-compliant DMCA Takedowns.
On or around March 20, 2022, I noticed that he was using my copyrighted Channel Icon #6 as his channel icon without my authorization, and so on March 20, 2022, I issued a DMCA takedown to Twitch asking for it to be taken down. However, Twitch did not take the infringement down. They replied to my DMCA Takedown Notice and asked that I provide proof that I actually own the copyright to this icon.
This is not a valid request. 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)-(vi) sets forth six things that a DMCA Takedown Notice must include. I included all six of these things and can easily provide proof thereof once this case gets underway. At no point does the DMCA require me to provide proof of copyright ownership when I issue a DMCA Takedown Notice. The law does not entitle the ISP to request additional details, other than those set forth in § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)-(vi), to verify an otherwise statutorily-compliant takedown notice.
It was not until May 10, 2022 that it was finally taken down. This means that Twitch allowed the act of infringement to continue for a total of 51 days.
This unreasonable delay in processing the DMCA takedown is, in my opinion, grounds for a loss of safe harbor. To qualify for safe harbor, Twitch must "act expeditiously to remove or disable access to"the infringing material upon receiving a statutorily-compliant DMCA takedown notice. The keyword, here, is "expeditiously," an important qualifier which Twitch has utterly failed to comply with.
There is no fair use defense applicable here. The individual infringer did not transform my icon in any way shape or form. He was just using it for his own channel. That is copyright infringement at its most blatant.
Nor is it likely that Twitch can successfully argue that my copyright is invalid, because I have a valid copyright registration. Unless they can prove that I committed actual fraud and/or failed to disclose a lack of originality to the Copyright Office when I applied for registration (which they will almost certainly not be able to do), I am still entitled to proceed on an infringement claim.
So safe harbor is Twitch's last bastion of hope for avoiding liability in this case. So the question is ... did Twitch act expeditiously? That, in turn, begs the question: Is 51 days (aka more than 1½ months) sufficiently expeditious in this case?
While there is no bright line rule for what counts as expeditious, this research paper sets out what I consider to be a pretty fair 3-prong test: http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal Issues/Volume 26/Issue 2/Weinstein.pdf
I plan to use that test when I litigate this matter.
Twitch almost certainly has an up-to-date system for receiving and processing DMCA takedowns. So that is a point against them.
The second prong sets forth sub-factors such as "whether the service provider had to consult with an attorney about the notification; whether the notification was for material that the service provider was already made aware of and known to be infringing, which it could remove without consulting legal counsel; and the adequacy of the notification."
Twitch didn't HAVE to consult with an attorney on this matter. Just because it took the advice of counsel for them to finally get off their butts and do their jobs, doesn't mean it was required. After all, there was absolutely no defense the individual infringer could possibly have raised in defense of this infringement. So anyone who was adequately trained to process DMCA takedowns would not need to consult with an attorney to know that this was blatant infringement.
Although I concede that Twitch likely didn't know about the infringement until I issued the DMCA takedown notice, once they had that notice, they had plenty of time to respond.
Lastly, the adequacy of the notification is not in dispute. I did everything the DMCA required me to do. I am not required to show proof of copyright ownership at the DMCA Takedown stage. Only when I file suit am I required to provide a copyright registration (which creates a statutory presumption of copyright ownership and validity anyway).
I would also add one more sub-factor to this second prong: The size of the DMCA Takedown notice. For example, in this article ... https://www.internetandtechnologylaw.com/the-complicated-relationshipbetween- dmca-takedown-notices-and-the-word-expeditious/ ... a case is mentioned whereby a 3½ week turnaround period was deemed "expeditious," but only because the takedown notice in question contained a list of 170 infringing articles.
However, such a sub-factor also weighs against Twitch in this case, as the operative takedown notice in this case requested the removal of only a single item. So overall, the second prong of this test will weigh against Twitch.
The third prong is easily against Twitch as well. It would have given Twitch no burden whatsoever - let alone an undue one - to taking the content down within hours, or at the very most 1-2 days, of receiving the DMCA Takedown.
So all three prongs of this proposed test weigh against Twitch taking any more than 1-2 days to process the takedown.
I therefore ask for statutory damages of $5,000, not only to compensate me for the infringement of my copyright, but also to send a message to ISPs in the future not to give copyright holders the run-around when they issue statutorily-compliant DMCA Takedowns.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2022
This is tangentially related.
Paralegal getting advice from fake lawyer (again), what-a-collab.
Creetosis server residents discovered these, providing them in the form they're.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
I feel like the father face stabbing incident was glossed over? How the fuck isn't he in jail after that?
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2022
He was in jail for couple of months (it was classified as battery, iirc) and then he subsequently sued the imprisonment facility for discrimination against disabled (he didn't like that staff didn't accommodate all of his desires and made him clean his cell)
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
He claims that while he was arrested, he was later exonerated "on a technicality, like O. J. Simpson"
Many users, including Sid Alpha, frequently question the truth of this. What we do know, is that he lost his lawsuit against his father, and the appeal too, that he did just after stabbing his father, wherein he alleged the father stabbed himself (though now he claims no injury ever occured)
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
I don't know why he'd take a screen shot of something that proves him wrong. Don't worry though, Carl's case will be used again. Love him or hate him he's done at least one good thing in his life.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
Oh nice! A new lawsuit journey!Did I forget about this, or is this new?
View attachment 4832225
u/acerthorn: suspended | Ghostarchive
ghostarchive.org
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
On Creetosis new stream:
Because YT is dumb, there is no way to see if this is a real Acerthorn
Edit: Archive:
Because YT is dumb, there is no way to see if this is a real Acerthorn
Edit: Archive:
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
I like his pleadings better than Russell Greer. Both get impassioned in their writings and yell at the court and make demands. Stebbins has the edge in making up edge cases and hyper focusing on them “did I just do this to silence criticism?? Prove it!” While Greer rambles about his plights and sues the wrong people over and over.
The real injured party in all of this is the Clerk of the Court who has to shuffle another wheelbarrow full of filings from Stebbins.
The real injured party in all of this is the Clerk of the Court who has to shuffle another wheelbarrow full of filings from Stebbins.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
In reference to Mothership Zeta DLC:
Fake Acer confirmed:
https://archive.ph/pZvYd (for all of the above)
Fake Acer confirmed:
https://archive.ph/pZvYd (for all of the above)
Last edited: