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.

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Ted Entertainment, Inc. v. Alexandra Marwa Saber 2:25-cv-05564 — District Court, C.D. California

  • Docket No.
    2:25-cv-05564
  • Court
    District Court, C.D. California
  • Filed
    18 Cze 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    Both
  • Last Filing
    9 Cze 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
Does, Alexandra Marwa Saber, Ted Entertainment, Inc.

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 45)

# Date Description Filing
44 9 Cze 2026 STATUS REPORT PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S MARCH 2, 2026 ORDER [DKT. NO. 29] filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment, Inc.. (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 06/10/2026) PDF
43 5 Cze 2026 COMPACT DISC Order for date of proceedings 06/05/2026 to 06/05/2026 filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment, Inc.. Court will contact Rom Bar-Nissim at Rom@HeahBarNissim.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre-Trial Proceeding: Hearing for Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings on June 5, 2026. FEE PAID. (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 06/06/2026) PDF
42 4 Cze 2026 MINUTES OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO COMPLAINT 35 Hearing held before Judge Wesley L. Hsu. The Court's Tentative Ruling was issued on June 4, 2026, and reviewed by counsel. The Court heard oral argument. The Court took the matter UNDER SUBMISSION and a ruling will be issued. Court Recorder: CourtSmart. (lom) (Entered: 06/05/2026) PDF
41 2 Cze 2026 SCHEDULING NOTICE AND (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CHANGING THE TIME OF THE MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Complaint 35 scheduled for 6/05/2026 by Judge Wesley L. Hsu: The Court, on its own motion, changes the time to 2:15 PM. The hearing will proceed in-person at the First Street Courthouse, Courtroom 9B. IT IS SO ORDERED.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cgm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/03/2026)
2 Cze 2026  

Ted Entertainment Inc. v. Morgan Kamal Majed 2:25-cv-05565 — District Court, C.D. California

  • Docket No.
    2:25-cv-05565
  • Court
    District Court, C.D. California
  • Filed
    18 Cze 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    Plaintiff
  • Last Filing
    19 Maj 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
Does, Ted Entertainment Inc., Morgan Kamal Majed

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 16)

# Date Description Filing
16 19 Maj 2026 DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a) as to Morgan Kamal Majed p/k/a Frogan. (iv) (Entered: 05/20/2026) PDF
15 18 Maj 2026 REQUEST for Clerk to Enter Default against defendant Morgan Kamal Majed filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit) (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 05/19/2026) 1 2 3
14 4 Sie 2025 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION RE: EXTEND ING THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT 13 by Judge John F. Walter. Frogan's deadline to respond to TEI's complaint extended to October 3, 2025. (iv) (Entered: 08/06/2025) PDF
13 4 Sie 2025 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to October 3, 2025 re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 08/05/2025) 1 2
12 17 Lip 2025 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment Inc., upon Defendant Morgan Kamal Majed served on 7/14/2025, answer due 8/4/2025. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Jane Doe - Member of Household in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by substituted service at home address and by also mailing a copy (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 07/18/2025) PDF

Ted Entertainment, Inc. v. Caviness 4:25-cv-00459 — District Court, W.D. Missouri

  • Docket No.
    4:25-cv-00459
  • Court
    District Court, W.D. Missouri
  • Filed
    18 Cze 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:101 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    Both
  • Last Filing
    7 Gru 2025

Parties (3)

Parties
Does 1-10, Kacey Caviness, Ted Entertainment, Inc.

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 36)

# Date Description Filing
27 7 Gru 2025 ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant Kacey Caviness p/k/a Kaceytron only. In the event that the settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case, provided that such motion is filed within 45 days of the date of this Order. In addition, the Court retains jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreed to by the parties. Signed on 12/8/25 by District Judge Brian C Wimes. (TLD) (Entered: 12/08/2025) PDF
26 1 Gru 2025 STIPULATION of dismissal without prejudice as to Defendant Kacey Caviness p/k/a Kaceytron by Ted Entertainment, Inc.. (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 12/02/2025) PDF
25 7 Paź 2025 DESIGNATION OF NEUTRAL by Kacey Caviness, Does 1-10. (Kassis, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/08/2025) PDF
24 5 Paź 2025 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed on 10/6/25 by District Judge Brian C Wimes. (TLD) (Entered: 10/06/2025) PDF
23 1 Paź 2025 Joint MOTION for protective order for Approval of Proposed Protective Order filed by Benjamin Kassis on behalf of Kacey Caviness. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/16/2025 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Kassis, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/02/2025) PDF

In re. Subpoenas to Reddit, Inc. and Ddiscord, Inc. 3:25-mc-80296 — District Court, N.D. California

  • Docket No.
    3:25-mc-80296
  • Court
    District Court, N.D. California
  • Filed
    21 Wrz 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    890 Other Statutory Actions
  • Cause
    Civil Miscellaneous Case
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    3 Cze 2026

Parties (2)

Parties
Doe Defendants, Ted Entertainment, Inc.

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 60)

# Date Description Filing
48 1 Cze 2026 USCA Case Number 26-3553 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for 46 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed by Doe Defendants. (pjf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2026) Modified on 6/3/2026 (pjf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/03/2026) PDF
47 31 Maj 2026 USCA Case Number 26-3513 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for 49 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit filed by Doe Defendants. (pjf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2026) Modified on 6/3/2026 (pjf, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/4/2026 (pjf, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/02/2026) PDF
49 28 Maj 2026 Petition For Writ Of Mandamus filed Directly with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (pjf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2026) Modified on 6/4/2026 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/04/2026) PDF
46 28 Maj 2026 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Doe Defendants. Appeal of Order, Terminate Motions 45 (Appeal fee of $605 receipt number ACANDC-22041800 paid.) (Vulic, Leah) (Filed on 5/29/2026) (Entered: 05/29/2026) PDF
45 28 Kwi 2026 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS. Signed by Judge Sallie Kim on 4/29/2026. (bxl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2026) (Entered: 04/29/2026) 1 2

Doe Defendants v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco 26-3513 — Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

  • Docket No.
    26-3513
  • Court
    Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Filed
    31 Maj 2026
  • Last Filing
    21 Cze 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
TED ENTERTAINMENT, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, DOE DEFENDANTS

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 9)

# Date Description Filing
9 21 Cze 2026 ADDED Counsel for Petitioner Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld [Entered: 06/22/2026 02:10 PM]
8 21 Cze 2026 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld for Petitioner Doe Defendants. [Entered: 06/22/2026 01:26 PM]
7 14 Cze 2026 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Real Party in Interest Ted Entertainment, Inc.. [Entered: 06/15/2026 03:03 PM] PDF
6 3 Cze 2026 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Petitioner Doe Defendants. [Court entered filing to correct DE 5] [Entered: 06/04/2026 03:28 PM] PDF
5 3 Cze 2026 DEFECTIVE---STATUS REPORT filed by Petitioner Doe Defendants. [Wrong filing type, corrected in DE 6] [Entered: 06/04/2026 03:09 PM] [Edited: 06/04/2026 03:29 PM]
I'm the nigger of the entire world
What do you expect from a Biden appointee?

At least there's new copyright law to be enjoyed, completely ignoring decades of previously existing law. Welcome to freedom.
I just realized that Ethan loosing will inspire a shitload of more people to do low effort slop "reaction" videos that were super popular on youtube about a decade ago before the original creators cracked down on copyright enforcement.
Ethan losing will be a consolation prize. Still, he should roll the dice on a Ninth Circuit appeal, because this particular decision very well may piss off a lot of Hollywood.
 
I just realized that Ethan loosing will inspire a shitload of more people to do low effort slop "reaction" videos that were super popular on youtube about a decade ago before the original creators cracked down on copyright enforcement.
Low effort reactions were already incentivized before the H3 lawsuits. You would think an effort to correct behavior in reacting to videos would be effective, but it turned out to be futile. It was frowned upon, almost sort of like an unwritten rule of YouTube creators.
 
I just realized that Ethan loosing will inspire a shitload of more people to do low effort slop "reaction" videos that were super popular on youtube about a decade ago before the original creators cracked down on copyright enforcement.
I mean he actually already set the precedent that led to this type of content to be considered fair use, like a decade ago. In fact that specific lawsuit is mentioned in this ruling. I don't see how this ruling would lead to more reaction slop, since it's already everywhere, and I don't think anyone thought it was illegal (except maybe for eurpoors)
 
I just realized that Ethan loosing will inspire a shitload of more people to do low effort slop "reaction" videos that were super popular on youtube about a decade ago before the original creators cracked down on copyright enforcement.
Just steal a screener DVD meant for critics and put it on YouTube the day the movie comes out. Grunt unintelligibly every 20 minutes or so. Maybe just say "this sucks." That's now "fair use."
 
This is not some slam dunk against ethan, it's just the judge telling his lawyer "tighten up your pleadings you retard".
 
I want them all to lose so I can keep winning.
If all this means is copyright takes a haircut, and we can all just air anything anyone streams and laugh at it, I would put up with a kikewin.

I still want to see redditors suck dicks. And by "see" I don't actually mean see these fat fucking cunts suck 2 inch penises, I just want to see them lose.

If the Jew loses, despite the actual law this Biden-appointed cocksucking faggot just made up, whatever. Let him take it to the Ninth, roll the dice, see what happens. He could easily win there because look how gay this decision is.
 
I first thought it was a slam dunk for Ethan after seeing the clips of Denims saying "don't give Ethan money and watch his stream here".

Then I saw the timeline Denims had in her response showing the pauses during her playback of Ethans stream, then I had doubts about Ethan winning.
retardtimeline.webp

I guess at the end of the day it may be a win for free use. Which we should all be happy for, even if it's a win for a vapid ewhore thot like Denims.
Kaceytron gotta be feeling like a retard for settling right about now. Wonder what Frogan will do.
 
Well, I’m honestly pretty clouded by my hatred for most reaction YouTubers. I have a hard time as a concept seeing streaming simultaneous to the premier release itself as a fair use - I know my notion is not the technical meaning of fair though. But, whatever, ultimately I can’t say i really care one way or another - no one here is particularly likeable, it’s just different shades and degrees of unlikable
I think the copywrite system is gay and retarded too but this is frankly one of those issues where the bad law not being applied equally and fairly makes the bad law worse.

If you did this with a disney movie the lawyers would get to rape you. Every fucking gun on the planet would turn and obliterate your ass from existence. You would die like a hamster in all conceivable realities; and as the sum of all your parts moved as one to the next trichiliocosm, a great shadow in the shape of a mouse on the Trisāhasramahāsāhasra. would stuff your soul into one of those sea cucumbers whose anus shoots out whenever it's scared. That's how raped you would get. Prolapse-SeaCucumber-Gigaraped.

Something like half of the Mystery Science theatre movies are still locked down because in a not-to-distant-future they still fear the Thousand-Millionfold-Assrape Trisa-hamster-whatever that word was. But that's because the judge knows if she tried to step to Disney or Warner she'd be ejecting sea cucumber anuses with the rest of us.

Do I care for the fate of Lex Jewthor and his Savage Snifflers? Not really. But would it be funny to watch the last crumbs of breadtube get put through whatever the fuck I typed two paragraphs ago? Absolutely. Ergo I am sad.
 
I love that this decision by this slant-eyed freak means that everyone everywhere can just openly pirate anything Hollywood comes out with by just repeating it in its entirety while some whore mumbles gibberish every few minutes, after having advertised you'd get to watch the entire movie.

This slanty-eyed chink should be sent back to China or. . .I dunno, just somewhere other than here. It's hard to view this gook as any kind of human.
 
Low effort reactions were already incentivized before the H3 lawsuits. You would think an effort to correct behavior in reacting to videos would be effective, but it turned out to be futile. It was frowned upon, almost sort of like an unwritten rule of YouTube creators.
Yeah , because YouTube today is not filled with lowest of the low effort.
Check this out. 🍊 (stolen AI generated short plays in its entirety).
This lolsuit will have (almost) no effect on YouTube ecosystem. YouTubers don't need encouragment to be as lazy as possible.
 
If you did this with a disney movie the lawyers would get to rape you.
That was one of my first thoughts when I read this. If the case is dismissed on fair-use grounds, could that then serve as further precedent for others attempting something similar with a TV show or movie?

My gut says no because money. but it will be interesting to see it tested.
 
I love that this decision by this slant-eyed freak means that everyone everywhere can just openly pirate anything Hollywood comes out with by just repeating it in its entirety while some whore mumbles gibberish every few minutes, after having advertised you'd get to watch the entire movie.

This slanty-eyed chink should be sent back to China or. . .I dunno, just somewhere other than here. It's hard to view this gook as any kind of human.
That's just not what the lawsuit says, at all. Ethan self owned over and over, and basically stated in the lawsuit that Denim was *transforming* his content into something else due to the commentary she added. Her audience was clearly not there just to watch the Nule either. They were there for her criticism and her take on his video. Again, if they wanted to watch his content nuke, they could have just watched it on his channel or from any reupload

Everyone making comparisons with disney movies or ripping an NFL game simply missed most of the ruling. If you watch someone's stream to see his take on football game, play by play, that's completely different from just watching someone say a few words here and there which would actually provide a substitute for the real NFL game. Look at the timeline of the stream too. No one was watching 2h of additional Denim's commentary just to watch the content nuke. At some point if you want to criticize an entire video, you have to play the entire video. Idk how 2h of commentary (not breaks) is not enough for a 1h40min video.


And again, why did he not just take down her video with a dmca claim? Youtube's system is stricter than the law itself. He tried to use copyright to go after people he hates and he failed.

But also, his lawyer is an actual fucking retard lol. Like wow.
 

So wait, Demins wins (ie. doesn't have to give Lex Jewther any of her Sheckles) but Frogan-the-hutt will have to give him money?

Sides status: ORBIT

:story:
 
If all this means is copyright takes a haircut, and we can all just air anything anyone streams and laugh at it, I would put up with a kikewin.

I still want to see redditors suck dicks. And by "see" I don't actually mean see these fat fucking cunts suck 2 inch penises, I just want to see them lose.

If the Jew loses, despite the actual law this Biden-appointed cocksucking faggot just made up, whatever. Let him take it to the Ninth, roll the dice, see what happens. He could easily win there because look how gay this decision is.
I first thought it was a slam dunk for Ethan after seeing the clips of Denims saying "don't give Ethan money and watch his stream here".

Then I saw the timeline Denims had in her response showing the pauses during her playback of Ethans stream, then I had doubts about Ethan winning.
Wyświetl załącznik 9102892

I guess at the end of the day it may be a win for free use. Which we should all be happy for, even if it's a win for a vapid ewhore thot like Denims.
Kaceytron gotta be feeling like a retard for settling right about now. Wonder what Frogan will do.
One thing I'm not particularly fond of with the tentative is that it does not analyze how much of the "commentary" is incidental or relevant to the underlying work. Even in the tentative itself, I'm not certain how the fuck "(3) stating that disabled Americans lose disability benefits when they get married;(4) incarceration levels in the United States" relates in any way to "criticism of Piker’s apologia of China’s genocide of the Uyghurs." Disability benefits and incarceration levels in the US seems like a hell of a non-sequitur when it comes to commenting on the Turkroach deepthroating China for killing Uyghurs.
 
Actually if this ended up screwing all copyright over when you stream and pause enough times it would be extremely funny in itself. Get fucked all of media.
 
I guess at the end of the day it may be a win for free use. Which we should all be happy for, even if it's a win for a vapid ewhore thot like Denims.

Holy Freudian slip Batman!

The only favorable outcome in this scenario is if everyone involved gathers in the courthouse and gets obliterated by an asteroid strike.

Reddit snarkers and the insufferable internet personalities they obsess over are just two halves of a gay ouroboros - instead of being a snake devouring its own tail its two faggots 69ing each other's dicks.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole