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.

[wierfrost87]

I get the hate for Ethan but let’s be honest…Denims is a massively braindead individual and a classic lazy reactioner whose tits are the only reason she can get views.

“Nightmare on Denims Street” was pretty hilarious.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

@MrMM Rom has requested the audio recording of the hearing, which I assume can serve the same purpose as a transcript for appeal purposes?

Let's see what happens.

I believe the use of the Countdown Episode is also open as to fair use, the Nuke was only one of two copyright protected items in this case IIRC:

 

[MrMM]

@MrMM Rom has requested the audio recording of the hearing, which I assume can serve the same purpose as a transcript for appeal purposes?

I don't actually know. I have never seen an audio recording as part of the appendix to an appeal (as opposed to a written transcript).

Even with respect to the supreme court, although federal circuit courts offer streams/recordings of arguments for public consumption, my understanding is the appeals themselves always reference a written transcript of arguments. Its easier for review.

 

[Terrifik]

Notice me

https://x.com/veizau/status/2063823874341707960?s=20

 

[Unimaginative Username]

The audacity of this bitch to compare her low-effort reactionslop to Asmongold's low-effort reactionslop. News flash, Denims: Asmongold always links to the original video and encourages his viewers to watch said video and give it a like, which is the exact opposite of what you were doing.

 

[lolwatagain]

I need a lawyers take;

Will this impact Frogans lawsuit? Last I heard Ethan got a default judgement and now they need to discuss damages. But if Demins gets her win does that mean Frogan can some how pull up from her cases Nosedive?

It doesn't impact Frogan's lawsuit, because Denim's win is based on and relies entirely upon her actions for her fair use defense. It might change what number the judge gives for statutory damages if the judge decides to take the time to watch Frogan's stream and decides that it is fair use, but unless she gets the default overturned, that ship has sailed and sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

The audacity of this bitch to compare her low-effort reactionslop to Asmongold's low-effort reactionslop. News flash, Denims: Asmongold always links to the original video and encourages his viewers to watch said video and give it a like, which is the exact opposite of what you were doing.

The Background NPC now has over 250k subs, and her journey started with 300 subs and Asmongold reacting to one of her first videos.

The difference is that Asmongold is a content accelerator, Denims is a content consumer.
Asmongold (and the team/editor behind him) actually put in effort to help the small creators he reacts to, Denims just steals to re-stream and generate money for herself.
The signal the judge will send by declaring her style of reaction content fair-use will be catastrophic for the creators, since it basically prevents anyone from ever protecting their content from these reaction farmers ever again.

 

[wierfrost87]

The audacity of this bitch to compare her low-effort reactionslop to Asmongold's low-effort reactionslop. News flash, Denims: Asmongold always links to the original video and encourages his viewers to watch said video and give it a like, which is the exact opposite of what you were doing.

The difference being people actually watch Asmon because he can’t shove 3/4 of his tits onto the screen and think people are tuning in to watch him talk.

Denims has a level of trisomy that is difficult to match.

 

[DragoonSierra]

On one hand copyright must die, on the other hand I want a muhammadin to behead Denims... a moral conundrum..

If copyright dies you just get sad sacks like Edgar Allen Poe.

 

[DragoonSierra]

It also makes the assumption that you need to react to the entirety, but does not require that you also ADDRESS the entirety.
In my opinion the fact that the reaction was LIVE, and she did not get to pre-watch to prepare notes and talking points to transform it during her stream, should have automatically precluded it from fair use.

Why should you have to address the entirely? Why can't you do it live?

Sorry for the double post.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Why should you have to address the entirely? Why can't you do it live?

Because the judge claims that in order to rebut the entirety, you have to WATCH the entirety.
He allows the watching and re-streaming of the entirety, because of "how it is used", and I am challenging that argument.

If the idea is that "to rebut all you need all of it", then it should follow that "you need to rebut all", not just specific sections.
If you only rebut to sections, then you should not be doing it live, and instead watch off-stream, prepare your rebuttal and only use the sections where you have an argument or opinion to share.

And if the logic is that "well, you can't know what you have a response to", then that puts the idea of re-streaming all of it LIVE in question in general.

 

[gaba pentin3493]

Because the judge claims that in order to rebut the entirety, you have to WATCH the entirety.
He allows the watching and re-streaming of the entirety, because of "how it is used", and I am challenging that argument.

If the idea is that "to rebut all you need all of it", then it should follow that "you need to rebut all", not just specific sections.
If you only rebut to sections, then you should not be doing it live, and instead watch off-stream, prepare your rebuttal and only use the sections where you have an argument or opinion to share.

And if the logic is that "well, you can't know what you have a response to", then that puts the idea of re-streaming all of it LIVE in question in general.

1. They're leaning heavily on Stebbins, in which watching the whole thing didn't matter. Take it up with the precedent if you don't like it.
2. It's weird that you have these dictatorial notions of what should and shouldn't be allowed when it comes to reacting to content. Let's say it became illegal to live-react to content, and to watch the whole thing. You'd never be able to see an expert be caught unaware ever again, because it would literally be illegal for them to put themselves in a situation like that. Every reaction would have to be pre-prepared arguments to specific non-exhaustive sections of videos, and any part that they don't have a response to they would LEGALLY be forced to ignore. Like, what the fuck are you even asking for?

 

[AnOminous]

This decision is ridiculous.

But is it good? Quite possibly maybe. Does this massively expand fair use?

That would actually be a good thing. And it would FUCK THIS JEW UP THE ASS!

I mean I would prefer to see all the redditors take it up the ass.

But I guess I'll just cope and deal.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

This decision is ridiculous.

But is it good? Quite possibly maybe. Does this massively expand fair use?

It won't do shit for fair use, because no appeals court will affirm this as a precedent setting decision.
Denims rolled a Natural 20 on the judge, but it will do nothing for anyone else.

Because the law remains the same, the case will not be precedent, and everyone would have to roll their own dice and pray.
(Assuming that Ethan appeals and the Appellate Court looks at this and says "hell no" and just affirms and moves on)

 

[AnOminous]

(Assuming that Ethan appeals and the Appellate Court looks at this and says "hell no" and just affirms and moves on)

Personally I think if Ethan appeals the Circuit will say "what the fuck wack brain bullshit was going through your head" but hey that's just me. I am completely at a loss what kind of retard of a "judge" reaches such a stupid decision.

But hey, that's just me.

 

[Ed Craven]

It won't do shit for fair use, because no appeals court will affirm this as a precedent setting decision.
Denims rolled a Natural 20 on the judge, but it will do nothing for anyone else.

Because the law remains the same, the case will not be precedent, and everyone would have to roll their own dice and pray.
(Assuming that Ethan appeals and the Appellate Court looks at this and says "hell no" and just affirms and moves on)

I’m also pretty concerned about Ethan’s lawyers professional capabilities given that he probably could’ve avoided the judgment in favour of Denims had he not been busy putting the history of Israel-Palestine and photos of Hitler in the complaint. Also of note is that the last time that Mr. Bar-Nissim represented H3 in an appeal, he lost to Ryan Kavanaugh.

 

[Maraschino]

“Nightmare on Denims Street” was pretty hilarious.

I mean...

It's literally a sign in her room.

Her "reaction" to Klein on Youtube says it's 3:55:54, but she was gone from the fucking video for extended periods at several times, last I recall. Asmongold's was 3:42:35, or about 13-14 minutes shorter. He also didn't literally say he was trying to deprive Klein of income.

The Background NPC now has over 250k subs, and her journey started with 300 subs and Asmongold reacting to one of her first videos.

It shot up to 100k after Asmongold reacted to it. Once. For one video. From 300 subs. He's a star maker. Denims is a fucking parasite.

The difference is that Asmongold is a content accelerator, Denims is a content consumer.
Asmongold (and the team/editor behind him) actually put in effort to help the small creators he reacts to, Denims just steals to re-stream and generate money for herself.

Asmongold, as a result to an incident he had with The Act Man, also typically waits several days before he reacts to something. Denims literally did her garbage as it premiered.

This decision is ridiculous.

But is it good? Quite possibly maybe. Does this massively expand fair use?

That would actually be a good thing.

Is it really an expansion if it drops the bar for fair use to the fucking floor? Because at least on some level, even with the randomness of a judge, people can hear what fair use is supposed to be, and then look at Denims literally say she's doing it to harm Ethan in a malicious manner, and not even say anything (if she's even on the screen at all) and think, "That doesn't sound like fair use. You sound like a fucking thief."

She had the best case, but I just think her literally saying the quiet part out loud on fucking with him commercially should've counted for more. And as a matter of fact, Uncivil Law mentioned on a recap with Nate and Laidback Law that the Supreme Court decision/opinion on Warhol from a few years ago (paraphrased) says that the commerciality factor in fair use had been unduly diminished for the last several decades, and it could be part of a way to argue against the decision.

I mean I would prefer to see all the redditors take it up the ass.

But I guess I'll just cope and deal.

I think if the decision goes against him, and Ethan appeals, it'll result in way more comedy and anger. Especially if he wins on appeal. I'll take someone else's minor setback now for even greater returns. If Klein and Denims are paying for it, it's even better.

 

[wierfrost87]

Denims is a fucking parasite.

This feels pretty insulting to parasites.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Asmongold, as a result to an incident he had with The Act Man, also typically waits several days before he reacts to something. Denims literally did her garbage as it premiered.

He also won't react to someone who asks him not to.

 

[Potentially Criminal]

Will this impact Frogans lawsuit? Last I heard Ethan got a default judgement and now they need to discuss damages. But if Demins gets her win does that mean Frogan can some how pull up from her cases Nosedive?

Courts generally allow parties to set aside a default in the interest of cases being decided on the merits. Parties in default cite reasons such as "I didn't know about this suit" not "Wait, I didn't think the other girl would actually win"

It will be interesting to see what the Court does since she demonstrably knew of the lawsuit, was served, and has made statements about it.

Honestly, this one is weird.

Who appoints judges again?

The President nominates Federal judges with advice and consent of the Senate.

Law just seems like what people in charge want it to be.

Law is heavily shaped by politics