💰 Grifter Ethan Klein / h3h3Productions / "pedo_troll" - Opportunistic, two-faced e-celeb sperg with a penchant for hypocrisy and an Oedipus complex; sold out to Susan Wojcicki, the incompetent CEO of YouTube

[nelly98]

Beware "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" arguments. Ethan isn't on your side and he's obviously going to frame things to make him look simultaneously as having the strongest position possible, but also that he's in danger and a horribly wronged victim.

The argument that this is to "protect" react streaming content is contentious, and even if it isn't this case specifically, down the line if he wins this case will be cited to chip away at online content freedom more and more.

Make sure not to justify losing freedoms just because some retards are dogging Ethan. Frogan or KaceyTron re-streaming Ethan is small fries compared to establishing case law.

 

[ChampFantana]

How the hell does a retarded diaper-kike like Ethan actually have gunt-guardians?

It's mind-blowing that anybody could possibly be that stupid.

 

[TV's Adam West]

I'm not joking — I fully believe there are Mossad agents employed to be on Kiwi Farms in an effort to sway public opinion in favor of the Jews. I am suspicious of anyone defending H3, and I'm sure at least 70% of them are covert Mossad agents with multiple tabs open ready to give me trash and hat reacts.

It's me, I'm the mossad agent. I'll be there shortly.

 

[DrearyDoomguy]

It's mind-blowing that anybody could possibly be that stupid.

He's producing entertaining content again. Even if it's purely by accident, it's still enough to make some of the people who hated him like him again. Seeing a hard leftist signal boost Kino Casino for no reason other than his sheer hatred of the people they're shitting on? That is funny any way you cut it.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

Tried to watch the latest show and it was chugging along nicely until they started reacting to the lawsuit reactions. Some of Ethans staff say they find Kaceytron funny, Ethan instantly pauses the show to seethe because "she insulted me wife." Then they play the part where Kaceytron calls Hila an ugly bitch cunt, and Ethan launches into this impotent attempt to dunk on her by calling her Shrek, who he believes is an Orc. Hila announces that she will start doing modelling again if anyone else calls her ugly, and the staff scramble to justify their disgraceful faux pax. All of this followed H3 and co. gleefully speculating how hard the lawsuits will cripple their opponents.

Hila is objectively hideous. I understand supporting your wife being insulted, but the way they all skirt around this fact by acting utterly perplexed such a description would be applied to her is absurd.

The fact so many H3 fans are donating to the different GoFundMe's with variations of "haha this money is going to Ethan" is ludicrous. They're handing money to the lawyers of their enemies and considering this an epic own? Cooked clown world.

The thing is it just goes back to what we have said since this lawsuit started: Frivolous lawsuits are looked down upon as just being greedy, but compared to the other people Ethan is up against, it’s just funny that they keep taking the bait while he exposes them for just being tools that do not understand what reaction content is.

I may be no fan of Ethan, but his opposition makes him just less obnoxious, which shows how the bar is somewhat low.

 

[cyberdick]

He's producing entertaining content again. Even if it's purely by accident, it's still enough to make some of the people who hated him like him again. Seeing a hard leftist signal boost Kino Casino for no reason other than his sheer hatred of the people they're shitting on? That is funny any way you cut it.

He should have listened to the Benzos king when he warned him. Remember when he went FULL WOKE and made retarded content and shit. It seems like it didn't work out and and now hes trying to make "good content" again. I kinda lost respect for him back then same way I lost any respect I had for idubbz. It was his own doing but I will support him in this drama because I hate the mudslime tankies more

 

[Nardvark]

Make sure not to justify losing freedoms just because some retards are dogging Ethan. Frogan or KaceyTron re-streaming Ethan is small fries compared to establishing case law.

We fucking know

 

[AnOminous]

The thing is it just goes back to what we have said since this lawsuit started: Frivolous lawsuits are looked down upon as just being greedy, but compared to the other people Ethan is up against, it’s just funny that they keep taking the bait while he exposes them for just being tools that do not understand what reaction content is.

Ethan is an asshole but if it's a valid cause of action it by definition isn't frivolous. Copying the entirety of a work when it's questionably transformative at best with the stated intention of causing financial harm to the rights holder gives rise to liability.

This really isn't like the Soygon suit where he clearly put some effort into editing the content he copied for an entirely different purpose than the original, i.e. to show what an absolute idiot Akilah Hughes is.

There's no real case law saying reaction videos are automatically fair use or automatically not fair use. It depends on the four factors of fair use, including how transformative it is. Something with continual running commentary is more likely to survive than just playing the video and grunting unintelligibly every few minutes or just insulting the creator.

 

[A Flying Nun]

Ethan is an asshole but if it's a valid cause of action it by definition isn't frivolous. Copying the entirety of a work when it's questionably transformative at best with the stated intention of causing financial harm to the rights holder gives rise to liability.

This really isn't like the Soygon suit where he clearly put some effort into editing the content he copied for an entirely different purpose than the original, i.e. to show what an absolute idiot Akilah Hughes is.

There's no real case law saying reaction videos are automatically fair use or automatically not fair use. It depends on the four factors of fair use, including how transformative it is. Something with continual running commentary is more likely to survive than just playing the video and grunting unintelligibly every few minutes or just insulting the creator.

Given the lack of much case law precedent on this topic, how do you view his chances here?

For example, I saw some people saying he had encouraged others to watch it and stream it. I'm not sure if that's true, but for sake of argument if it were true, how much would that harm his case?

Beware "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" arguments. Ethan isn't on your side and he's obviously going to frame things to make him look simultaneously as having the strongest position possible, but also that he's in danger and a horribly wronged victim.

The argument that this is to "protect" react streaming content is contentious, and even if it isn't this case specifically, down the line if he wins this case will be cited to chip away at online content freedom more and more.

Make sure not to justify losing freedoms just because some retards are dogging Ethan. Frogan or KaceyTron re-streaming Ethan is small fries compared to establishing case law.

While I think your outlook is healthy, I think in this case, Ethan can be "trusted."

An important caveat is he specifically went after the three that expressed intent to siphon money away from him. This could be pivotal enough for the case that they don't need to delve much into other rationale to decide in his favor, meaning it wouldn't be much of a reinforcement for "chipping away at our freedom."

If everything goes well, all he's reinforcing is that you absolutely should not express intent to harm the original creator by stealing their viewership, which is hardly a loss whatsoever.

 

[AnOminous]

Given the lack of much case law precedent on this topic, how do you view his chances here?

I think the chances of liability are pretty good.

For example, I saw some people saying he had encouraged others to watch it and stream it. I'm not sure if that's true, but for sake of argument if it were true, how much would that harm his case?

If he actually did that it could be construed as an explicit or implicit license. That doesn't mean he couldn't withdraw his permission, but it might make the apparent lack of notice look worse. None of the parties have done themselves any favors with their ignorant public blathering.

They're all grifters. The thing is, copyright litigation is about the worst way to grift I can think of, because the lawyers are going to end up with all or almost all of the money.

 

[AssignedEva]

They're all grifters. The thing is, copyright litigation is about the worst way to grift I can think of, because the lawyers are going to end up with all or almost all of the money.

In fairness, this isn't Ethan grifting, this is Ethan seething. He made a point of setting money on fire to light his cigar in the video and joked about creating "generational wealth" for his attorney's family - he doesn't care that he won't see much money in damages, he just wants to crush these three streamers and expose the snarkers. Possibly in the hope that this will spook people out of criticising him in future (he believes all criticism/negative pr he gets online is the result of a highly coordinated leftist conspiracy to ruin his career, rather than an organic reaction from the audience he courted) but to be honest, it might not be that thought out. It might just be pure, petty vindictiveness.
In a way, it's almost awe inspiring.

 

[jaryan patriot]

Make sure not to justify losing freedoms just because some retards are dogging Ethan. Frogan or KaceyTron re-streaming Ethan is small fries compared to establishing case law.

There is nothing being established. Everything react streamers do is unequivocally illegal and has been for generations. But in order to be charged there needs to be a plaintiff, and streamers and their cults have been very successful in intimidating smaller creators against making claims.

 

[R00T]

Why did putting his content into the library of congress such a W for the lawsuit?

It highlights an express purpose in protecting your copyright as well. A sort of intent to want to protect what it is, with money and a paper trail to guard it. That way if it does become an issue you’re able to point to it. In these kinds of cases it only strengthens your argument.

The big issue will be determining transformative nature. Personally I think it’s a bar that needs to be set, and with these different cases we could potentially see different outcomes. I have had retards tell me that changing the key of a song is transformative and allows you to circumvent copyright. It does not. If these toads are doing the equivalent of changing the title on the video and reposting it then they likely fail the bar. I cannot reupload an episode of Dr. Phil wholesale and change the title of it to Bald GuY, PHD. That’s not transformative. I can take clips from it and discuss the present content and apply additional statements for context and that would make it transformative. Note that this highlights two ways the content is different. Taking only clips changes the intent of the media, and providing your own information and additional context can further separate your work from the original author.

 

[Tepes Thot]

I mean, did everyone forget when H3 used illegal link and made it publicaly visible on his million viewer/sub stream of that paywalled boxing match, and his excuse was "I don't wanna give that jerk money" ?

New marching orders. We have to memory hole everything that doesn’t fit the narrative that he’s a big chadoid.

Like him being willing to troon out his son at will, or helping his legion harass and stalk Trisha when she was pregnant ( I also hate Trisha, but if we’re gonna keep talking about kids then….).

 

[soulgains]

Beware "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" arguments. Ethan isn't on your side and he's obviously going to frame things to make him look simultaneously as having the strongest position possible, but also that he's in danger and a horribly wronged victim.

The argument that this is to "protect" react streaming content is contentious, and even if it isn't this case specifically, down the line if he wins this case will be cited to chip away at online content freedom more and more.

Make sure not to justify losing freedoms just because some retards are dogging Ethan. Frogan or KaceyTron re-streaming Ethan is small fries compared to establishing case law.

Why did this post get medals but none of mine using the same talking point have?

But seriously though, dozens of people have had the exact same analysis on this, and other people, who 2 years ago would've condemned this, are now clapping like seals at the possibility of Ethan killing off react content. This is Amara's rule in the context of react content, long term costs outweigh short term benefits. Any adult whose above the age of 30 can see that this lolsuit is retarded and will have long lasting impacts that we've yet to foresee, but the zoomers are eternally living from moment to moment, completely unaware of history, supporting a litigous Jew in his quest to bankrupt those who are critical of him. To anyone whose on Ethan's side, you are getting in bed with a liberal Jew who hates and despises people like you and what you put out. None of this will end in our favor, even if the people we hate get fucked over.

 

[Terrifik]

Beware "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" arguments. Ethan isn't on your side and he's obviously going to frame things to make him look simultaneously as having the strongest position possible, but also that he's in danger and a horribly wronged victim.

The argument that this is to "protect" react streaming content is contentious, and even if it isn't this case specifically, down the line if he wins this case will be cited to chip away at online content freedom more and more.

Make sure not to justify losing freedoms just because some retards are dogging Ethan. Frogan or KaceyTron re-streaming Ethan is small fries compared to establishing case law.

Also expect twitch to activate poison pill measure when ethan wins. (My guess is ban on react content & youtube & copyrighted work on twitch)

 

[Anti Lolicon Bomb]

I find Hila a lot hotter than Denims tbh. At least she doesn't look purely demonic and evil like these "objectively" attractive plastic bitches.

Was going to say this, I don't think shes the picture of beauty or anything but shes doing a hell of a lot better in that department than the 3 smelly whores H3s suing.

 

[Terfatron]

So I asked Grok about this:

Because AI really have some stellar takes when it comes to law, just look at Karl Jobst and how well it all panned out.

Just call or mail a lawyer you know, send in a free question to some law site and post the answer here, but all this ai slop saying "akschually, chatgpt is wrong because when I asked GEMINI..." is just irrelevant.

And way too many people read it as gospel because the mental capacity to process the information when it comes to Ai is just not there; the rekeita thread being a great exampel where people argued for over 10 pages because they genuinely thought Jessie's pictures were real...

This site really is boomertopia sometimes

 

[Sheryl Nome]

It highlights an express purpose in protecting your copyright as well. A sort of intent to want to protect what it is, with money and a paper trail to guard it. That way if it does become an issue you’re able to point to it. In these kinds of cases it only strengthens your argument.

The big issue will be determining transformative nature. Personally I think it’s a bar that needs to be set, and with these different cases we could potentially see different outcomes. I have had retards tell me that changing the key of a song is transformative and allows you to circumvent copyright. It does not. If these toads are doing the equivalent of changing the title on the video and reposting it then they likely fail the bar. I cannot reupload an episode of Dr. Phil wholesale and change the title of it to Bald GuY, PHD. That’s not transformative. I can take clips from it and discuss the present content and apply additional statements for context and that would make it transformative. Note that this highlights two ways the content is different. Taking only clips changes the intent of the media, and providing your own information and additional context can further separate your work from the original author.

If only there was some case where a bar was set.

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;}
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Those are the fair use factors, you can read This convenient case for further, but the big one here that is likely going to fuck the defendants here is the fourth. The effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work, the question is if the defendant violated copyright "by offering a substitute for the original, usurp a market that properly belongs to the copyright-holder."

Which they all unarguably did, they all stated that as their intention. Its likely going to get him the heads of the redditors too.

 

[Thomas Talus]

the lawyers are going to end up with all or almost all of the money.

Isn't it just beautiful?

Any adult whose above the age of 30 can see that this lolsuit is retarded and will have long lasting impacts that we've yet to foresee

People keep harping on about the precedent this is going to set, but I'm not so sure about that. Remember, trial-level verdicts aren't precedential, only appellate-level rulings. And I don't see any novel/unsettled legal issues being raised here that would justify appellate intervention, just a question of the application of the facts to the factors, and that's highly unlikely to get de novo review.