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.

[AnOminous]

Their behavior won't change one bit.

Maybe not but their financial situation will change greatly, and they will be forced to grovel on their knees to a vindictive Jew.

Redditors think they're the "good guys" and that anyone they oppose is the "bad guy" and that they can do anything to the "bad guy" without limits. They've usually never received pushback for their sociopathy so they just think it's ok.

The whole reddit outlook is if you just scream NAWTZEE NAWTZEE at someone, you can then commit crimes against them freely. They don't grasp that the rest of humanity does not agree with this.

(They're also kind of weirded out when the guy you're screaming NAWTZEE at is Jewish.)

(Also "we call ourselves the Good Guy squad so whatever we do is justified.")

 

[HackerX]

I like these two blurbs in particular:

"Here are three pages to comprehensively explain why the hundreds of pages you submitted were pointless."


"Dear Doe Defendants, I know you were shitting your pants about remaining anonymous. Thankfully, I've given you something new, and much worse, to worry about."

 

[moocow]

The court spells out how badly they all fucked up. The citation to Urban Dictionary to define what "hatewatching" means is pretty funny, as is the footnote pointing out that the court occasionally uses Urban Dictionary to define slang words.

Ah yeah I thought at first glance this was actually a pretty shitty ruling, but then I forgot these dipshits bragged about doing it and were relying on the whole legal system to just be "clueless" about their modern hipster faggot internet culture.

When the fucking Ninth Circuit of all places cites the god damn urban dictionary in its explanation as to why your motion is retarded and to be denied, you know you've just stepped into a hell of your own making. Never thought I'd say this, but good fuckin' job, Ninth! Did some good solid work on this one.

 

[Terrifik]

They deleted the first post on the announcement .

 

[The Incredible Gassy]

Ethan if you can here me you need to rape and kill these faggots in court.

 

[AnOminous]

"Dear Doe Defendants, I know you were shitting your pants about remaining anonymous. Thankfully, I've given you something new, and much worse, to worry about."

The funny thing is if they had gone about this in any other way, Sony v. Cox might very well have precluded the claims against them. But no, they just had to jump up and down screaming and yelling "let's financially harm this dude!"

This may be the last remnant of contributory infringement and they managed to fuck it up.

Redditors.

 

[HarblMcDavid]

That grossly oversimplifies the Sargon case. He heavily edited the original content to produce his critique. His modifications served to mock Akilah and her political views, which was an important aspect of his defense among other factors. The court also looked down on Akilah publicly stating that she was suing Sargon to financially damage him, which was part of the reason he wound up getting costs awarded to him as well.

I could be misremembering the case, but I seem to recall Akilah admitted in her filings that she sued over the video because the video criticized her, which at the level the case was at meant that both sides agreed on the facts (Sargon asserted it was fair use of course, but importantly since she admitted her impetus was the video's criticism of her, she effectively agreed with Sargon on fair use analysis) and the lawsuit could be dismissed without further motion practice.

The judge did opine on fair use analysis which is where we got his analysis of the video itself that was extremely interesting but was effectively empty net goals for fun since the most important part is that they agreed on relevant facts which as a matter of law necessitated the lawsuit's dismissal in Sargon's favor.

So that might be the biggest difference in these cases, as so far as I can tell the sides aren't in agreement on the facts so as long as the evidence provided by Ethan is enough to establish the bare minimum to assert the claims he's stated it's gonna be hard to bump it off the track to discovery assuming competent counsel for TED and no settlements mooting things.

 

[AirMail]

And these streams were hosted by complete airheads (one of them high off their face) who sat there, let it play and said nothing except 'watch it here so you don't give the Jew any views'.

That is what I mean by repackage. Just restream with a different title and different intended audience. From my memory of the Sargon case, that is wheat he did. Just reuploaded with a different title for a different audience, and that was found to be all that is necessary for fair use.

He heavily edited the original content to produce his critique. His modifications served to mock Akilah and her political views, which was an important aspect of his defense among other factors.

From my memory, the interesting part was that he didn't edit it at all. He just reuploaded it with a different title for a different audience, and the judge said that that was sufficient to be fair use, as it did not impinge on her audience at all, which if I remember rightly is one of the 4 considerations of fair use.

but as I understand it Lex Jewthor registered the Content Nuke under the Library of Congress, which is such a lengthy process it delayed the release of the video by a number of weeks. However the LoC registration grants you extended powers under copyright law

As far as I know, the only difference is in damages.

------------+

For me, the significance or the Sargon case is this -

if you are trying to take away an audience of hate watchers form someone with a reupload, then that is not fair use, because you are competing for the same audience.

But if you are reuploading so that you can create a new audience of hate watchers who would not have otherwise watched, then that tends towards fair use, as you are not harming the market for their product at all.

I'm not sure which it is in this case, and I'm not sure the Judge has comprehended the subtle distinction between the two different types of "hate watching".

Please take my legal opinion with a grain of salt, as I learned everything I know from an alcoholic drug addicted cuckold, and there is a high likelihood everything he has ever said has been wrong.

 

[AnOminous]

From my memory, the interesting part was that he didn't edit it at all. He just reuploaded it with a different title for a different audience, and the judge said that that was sufficient to be fair use, as it did not impinge on her audience at all, which if I remember rightly is one of the 4 considerations of fair use.

Actually he reformatted it extensively to make his specific points, to the point that Akilah's lolsuit was not merely unfounded, but actually frivolous to the point the fee-shifting rule applied.

(Not disagreeing with your general point that the fourth factor of fair use, market impact, is often determinative, but in this case, the use was clearly transformative even though Sargon didn't explicitly add commentary. The commentary specifically WAS the reformatting to highlight the stupidity of Akilah.)

 

[oh no its pipkun]

From my memory

jog your memory. id post the original video but i cant find it thanks to jeettube search being dog shit.

 

[AnOminous]

Also read the opinion:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2017cv06493/479687/52/

 

[Cuckoman]

Regardless of everything else, this is great news for the future harvest.

The Kaceytron hostage video was very funny.
I look forward to 3 or 4 new such videos in the same style. Thankyou Ethan.
(Once Discovery has ended and Ethan knows whether there are bigger fish to fry and worth pursuing, like RedditInc or Hasan.)

Looking good for us. The YT commentary community will probably also have a lot of good content coming up.

 

[Dropa5pack]

I don’t like copyright. It’s basically just a benefit to multinational corporations. It doesn’t really protect small, independent artists, and it lasts far longer than medical patents. But under current law, they clearly fucked up.

 

[AnOminous]

Anything bad that happens to redditors is good.

 

[3-2-1836]

What's sad is the fact these fuckers had 9 whole months to DFE

 

[HackerX]

I don’t like copyright. It’s basically just a benefit to multinational corporations. It doesn’t really protect small, independent artists, and it lasts far longer than medical patents. But under current law, they clearly fucked up.

It'd be one thing if it were even a standard level of fucked up, but the retards gigafucked up. Something tells me you probably shouldn't gloat about redirecting views for the sole purpose of depriving the original creator of views. Maybe if it was like "Hey, Check out Denims for her take on the kike's video", or something. Sure, it'd been a lie since she doesn't bother to transform shit at all, but at least the Redditors defense could debate that. Instead, I'm not even entirely sure if Denim's fair use argument has anything to do with theirs, since their stated purpose was to deprive Ethan of views.

 

[Cuckoman]

What's sad is the fact these fuckers had 9 whole months to DFE

DFE does not actually delete anything.
When you delete a post/image/tweet/whatever it is actually not deleted.
It only gets a flag set in the database that means "do not show to users" but leaves it as-is in case LEO or courts need to look at it. Like, in case you do something that makes them want to look at your old, and potentially deleted, posts.

This also includes posts you do on kiwifarms too.
Everything you post is there forever. You may "flag" it so it does not show up for normal users but it sure as hell will still be there when LEO wants to look at it.

 

[Lapsus of the bepsus]

i dont think anyone has mentioned this yet but notably tei is forbidden from releasing the jannies identities to the public in any way unless/until the court in the copyright case rules otherwise

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Ha, I went to bed too early. It was filed when I was already asleep.
Great news to read when I log into KF for the day.

SUFFAH REDDITORS

 

[Vect]

That is what I mean by repackage. Just restream with a different title and different intended audience.

That's the debate that's been happening for over 10 years. There is a fine line between restreaming someone else's content and being transformative. Sargon's use of what's her names clips were re-arranged and intended for mockery, which he duly provided. YouTube holds I think at least 4 videos they deem as legally demonstrative examples of fair use and transformative content, which are in the same kind of league.

Again, these idiots didn't even try. They sat there and just let it play with virtually nothing to say, which is notoriously parasitic and cringe behaviour. It's why Klein can sue them specifically, and the Reddit mods for promoting what they were doing.

And before you get pedantic, let me make it clear this has fuck all to do with copyright. This is because this subreddit has attempted to fuck with Klein's family by initiating a CPS call for baseless rumors started by a schizophrenic Aussie Communist LARPer. These 'snark' subreddits create an alternate history around their subject and run with it to the point where it's a genuine harassment campaign. That's what Klein is actually after, to send a message and fuck these people over, because they danced into a legal trap of his design by registering his silly Content Nuke video for copyright.