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.

[MrMM]

what did it say lol

Lol I have the page up from before it got deleted: "I agree with you (as an attorney myself), but this community has rose colored glasses on and is downvoting any objective reading of how that went."



ETA: is there not some irony here of the actual defendants in this case .... actively moderating the discussion on the subreddit in their favor by deleting negative reactions?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftoversH3/comments/1sqvqj7/comment/ohanwvu/?

Snark
They know it's bad o7
https://archive.ph/y3Pdj - to late of archive

The cope in that thread is epic.
lmao

They completely misread the room.

I am not so sure. I don't think that gets resolved at this stage. That strikes more at the ultimate merits.

I should have been clearer. I think the majority of them will be dismissed during the actual case, not during this attempt to quash.
It requires some gathering of facts to establish which party did what, which is exactly why the identities need to be uncovered.

 

[toffle]

lol at the hilas iPhone bit. pretty funny.

-snip as I don't want denims gay lawyer to screenshot my post -

i look forward to the progression of this case based on the merits of the claim

 

[MrMM]

lol at the hilas iPhone bit. pretty funny.

hope we get the full legal name of each and every fat troon Reddit janny

It was so painfully embarrassing. Yeah, the snarkers are 100% right it was like "boot this person we dont need actual parties here" lmao. Forgot to put that in my notes since I didn't realize it was Hila at the time, i think it was a weird pronunciation.

But also, that's on Rom, come on dude you gotta prep your clients to not do that crap.

 

[toffle]

rom definitely comes off as a little sloppy. not ron Coleman tier (iykyk) but I bet Ethan is gonna give him a light spanking at their next gameplan sesh

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

lol at the hilas iPhone bit. pretty funny.

hope we get the full legal name of each and every fat troon Reddit janny

I don't understand why they are making a big deal out of it.
She is a party to the case, and if you have not attended zoom court before you might think you cannot watch unless you are invited in.

It is an easy and honest mistake to make. The number of people in that subreddit who use trivialities to dunk on Hila is nauseating.

But yeah, Rom should have instructed her better.
There was also no need for her to be there, but I understand the interest. I was there too after all.

rom definitely comes off as a little sloppy. not ron Coleman tier (iykyk) but I bet Ethan is gonna give him a light spanking at their next gameplan sesh

He did not come across well prepared, but neither did Miss Vucic.
It felt like our discussions of the legal implications in this thread were more detailed than the actual arguments exchanged.

It also felt like Miss Vucic is resigned to the fact that she will lose this.

 

[anliteralidiot]

But yeah, Rom should have instructed her better.

Supposedly it was a fake Hila, so...
I can't imagine why she would even join separately, when she could watch with Ethan?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

Supposedly it was a fake Hila, so...
I can't imagine why she would even join separately, when she could watch with Ethan?

True, I did not even consider the possibility that some moron would show up pretending to be Hila and raise his hand.
I am not one for Gayops.

And you are right, I expect Ethan and Hila to have watched this on a 58" TV from their whirlpool filled with Redditor tears.

EDIT: What I also think is very indicative of the overall intelligence and education level of the Redditors is that this KF thread with 7 active users or so, got two summaries that managed to capture the general tone of the proceedings and how the judge was leaning, one of which was very detailed and written by a legal professional with experience in the field.

And Reddit got not one actual summary, yet they are talking shit.

EDIT2: Just look at the braindamage these people have. Astonishing logic.
That is like claiming: "How can it be rape when she allowed me to fuck her once before?" (And 54 people updooted that)

 

[Terrifik]

So if this stands does this set case law for
Giving more power to copyright to sue anonymous user on the internet.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

So if this stands does this set case law for
Giving more power to copyright to sue anonymous user on the internet.

No, it will simply follow in the steps of what was already established.
There is nothing new here at all.

 

[MrMM]

What I also think is very indicative of the overall intelligence and education level of the Redditors is that this KF thread with 7 active users or so, got two summaries that managed to capture the general tone of the proceedings and how the judge was leaning, one of which was very detailed and written by a legal professional with experience in the field.

And Reddit got not one actual summary, yet they are talking shit.

I found this part funny:



"She seemed to genuinely understand when the snark mods' lawyer said "Let me explain how Reddit works" and explained the hosting of megathreads for the purposes of discussion and the differences between Denims' stream vs the raw content nuke"

The judge quite literally did not ask for an explanation of how reddit works, and then sat silently for a spell while Leah regurgitated the same things she has put in all her papers, and then the judge just said "understood" and moved on to question 7 (I think it was, verbatim, "understood, on to question 7").

This was immediately after the judge said "based on what she has seen" the defendants were encouraging users to view Denims stream (which is, again, totally consistent with the statement by the mods "Hey everyone, we’ve seen a lot of comments about wanting to watch the nuke without showing support for H3")

Maybe it's just a lack of reps of listening to judges and normies don't get it, but if the judge says "This sure looks like X" and then you talk for a minute or two uninterrupted with "Actually Y" and the judge immediately moves on without investigating any of Y, that's not good for the party arguing Y.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

"She seemed to genuinely understand when the snark mods' lawyer said "Let me explain how Reddit works" and explained the hosting of megathreads for the purposes of discussion and the differences between Denims' stream vs the raw content nuke"

The judge quite literally did not ask for an explanation of how reddit works, and then sat silently for a spell while Leah regurgitated the same things she has put in all her papers, and then the judge just said "understood" and moved on to question 7 (I think it was, verbatim, "understood, on to question 7").

I thought Miss Vucic did an admirable job with the virtually zero arguments to defend her clients with.
Trying to obfuscate the issue by throwing in irrelevant stuff about "aktshually, let me explain how reddit works!" wasn't the worst attempt.

 

[Frightened Rabbit]

I know jackshit about legaleese and stuff, so I need stuff spoonfed to me.
Since the judge is leaning towards unamsking the redditors to see who is and isn't the one that was closest to copyright infringement, how long can we expect this to stretch over? And if the judge does end up allowing a search on those Redditors, what exactly will be dug up?

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

And if the judge does end up allowing a search on those Redditors, what exactly will be dug up?

This judge is simply deciding if the subpoena to Reddit and Discord is issued, in which these companies are directed to hand over the PII regarding the user accounts specified.

After that it is up to Ethan and his investigators to figure out who the people are, who owned what accounts, attribute the different things they said, and serve them with the three lawsuits.

 

[Terrifik]

Win
I told you so you fucked up
55:35
REDDIT TRY HIDE THAT THEY POSTED IT-zoom stream
That's why me & @Gobermental Supervisor
Warned multiple times.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

On these grounds Ethan should win easily in my opinion.

if this were the case she'd have ruled on it already. the thing is that this regarding the subpeonas for the redditors not denims. there's probably a 1st amendment issue the judge wants the parties to realize like the right to anonymity or something.

 

[MrMM]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=qXSwqWvXZvQWin
I told you so you fucked up
55:35
REDDIT TRY HIDE THAT THEY POSTED IT
That's why me & @Gobermental Supervisor
Warned multiple times.

No, LUS is just being dumb saying a video was posted.

The precise language is “Somebody posted and deleted during the call already but in case you missed it, there was a veryyyyyy funny moment where the judge asked lawyers to use the Raise Hand feature to be granted speaking privileges”.

This is not saying someone posted a video. This is saying they posted "during the call". To their credit, the snark subreddit was largely giving the same advice we did here about waiting until after the call ends to comment. And mods I think were deleting live comments consistent with that.



LUS is saying someone posted a video, based on that comment. But that comment is just that someone posted during the call about the moment. And to be honest, we were giving advice to be cautious, but it's almost certainly not actually in breach of the order to discuss the conference, during the conference, online. Just as it wouldn't be in breach to talk to someone sitting next to you as you watched about it.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

if this were the case she'd have ruled on it already. the thing is that this regarding the subpeonas for the redditors not denims. there's probably a 1st amendment issue the judge wants the parties to realize like the right to anonymity or something.

They covered that in this hearing, and she explicitly mentioned the 1A element as an aspect.
She appears to lean towards the prima fascie requirement, because she also explains that the discussions on the reddit are not at issue, which would be 1A relevant, but the activities that seem to motivate users to watch Denim's stream over Ethan's.

Meaning, if Ethan has what appears to be a legit copyright case, the subpoena must be issued.
(And he does have, what appears to be a legit case.)

EDIT: What I mean is, "Ethan is a cunt." is protected by 1A, but saying "Ethan is a cunt, everyone harm him financially by watching THIS alternative stream" is not.
It really isn't a 1A issue, you cannot hide behind 1A for speech that itself is inducing the copyright infringement.

 

[Thomas Talus]

So if this stands does this set case law for
Giving more power to copyright to sue anonymous user on the internet.

No. Trial court decisions are not precedential, only appellate ones.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

@MrMM I had been wondering ever since this lawsuit was filed how it is possible Denims is this retarded and incapable of understanding that she fucked up.
But after reading that subreddit I have realized that all of Ethan's haters are lobotomized. I know FULLY understand how Denims can still live in her imaginary lalaland.

The one person in that thread who had a realistic take on the hearing is getting downvoted to shits.