Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
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 de Jun, 2025
Nature of Suit
820 Copyright
Cause
17:501 Copyright Infringement
Jurisdiction
Federal Question
Jury Demand
Both
Last Filing
9 de Jun, 2026
Parties (3)
Parties
Does, Alexandra Marwa Saber, Ted Entertainment, Inc.
Recent Filings
(showing 5 of 45)
#
Date
Description
Filing
44
9 de Jun, 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)
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)
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)
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 de Jun, 2026
Ted Entertainment Inc. v. Morgan Kamal Majed
2:25-cv-05565— District Court, C.D. California
APPLICATION for Default Judgment against Defendant Morgan Kamal Majed p/k/a Frogan filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment Inc.. Application set for hearing on 8/10/2026 at 01:30 PM before Judge John F. Walter. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment against Defendant Majed, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Rom Bar-Nissim in support of Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment of Defendant Majed, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Bar-Nissim Declaration: Copyright Office Registration Certificate for Content Nuke: Hasan Piker, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Bar-Nisim Declaration: April 29, 2026 Order by the Honorable Sallie Kim Denying Doe Defendants' Motion to Quash, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Bar-Nissim Declaration: June 29, 2026 Screenshot of Defendant Majed's GoFundMe for Legal Defense Fund, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Bar-Nissim Declaration: April 20, 2026 Email to Majed's Counsel Providing Notice of Default, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Bar-Nissim Declaration: Invoices Issued to Plaintiff for the Present Action, # 8 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Application for Default Judgment Against Defendant Majed) (Bar-Nissim, Rom) (Entered: 06/30/2026)
Text Entry Order: Plaintiff Ted Entertainment, Inc.s Application for Default Judgment Against Defendant Morgan Kamal Majed filed on June 29, 2026, Docket No. 17 is STRICKEN for failure to comply with paragraph 3(b) of the Court's Standing Order. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/30/2026)
—
29 de Jun, 2026
17
28 de Jun, 2026
*STRICKEN* APPLICATION for Default Judgment against Defendant Morgan Kamal Majed p/k/a Frogan filed by Plaintiff Ted Entertainment Inc.. Application set for hearing on 8/10/2026 at 01:30 PM before Judge John F. Walter. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Proposed Order) (Bar-Nissim, Rom) Modified on 6/30/2026 (sr). (Entered: 06/29/2026)
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 de Jun, 2025
Nature of Suit
820 Copyright
Cause
17:101 Copyright Infringement
Jurisdiction
Federal Question
Jury Demand
Both
Last Filing
7 de Dic, 2025
Parties (3)
Parties
Does 1-10, Kacey Caviness, Ted Entertainment, Inc.
Recent Filings
(showing 5 of 36)
#
Date
Description
Filing
27
7 de Dic, 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)
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)
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)
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 de Sep, 2025
Nature of Suit
890 Other Statutory Actions
Cause
Civil Miscellaneous Case
Jurisdiction
Federal Question
Jury Demand
None
Last Filing
3 de Jun, 2026
Parties (2)
Parties
Doe Defendants, Ted Entertainment, Inc.
Recent Filings
(showing 5 of 60)
#
Date
Description
Filing
48
1 de Jun, 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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't know about this particular hearing, but it seems like all the judges in this district have Zoom links. Anyway, worth at least giving it a shot.
I don't know about this particular hearing, but it seems like all the judges in this district have Zoom links. Anyway, worth at least giving it a shot.
Seems like that was a sweeping Denims Victory. Not subtle.
Has to hurt when the judge uses your own previous litigation efforts regarding fair use against you.
Farms with the breaking news before it shows up anywhere else.
Seems like that was a sweeping Denims Victory. Not subtle.
Has to hurt when the judge uses your own previous litigation efforts regarding fair use against you.
Farms with the breaking news before it shows up anywhere else.
The judgment makes sense to drunk me but I'm not sure. What's wrong with the decision? Also their lawyer was a bit retarded in some ways. I thought jews were good lawyers
The judgment makes sense to drunk me but I'm not sure. What's wrong with the decision? Also their lawyer was a bit retarded in some ways. I thought jews were good lawyers Ver archivo adjunto 9102178
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
This is a tentative ruling, so according to my research (not a lawfag) it's not final until after the hearing tomorrow. This is the judge saying "Here's what I plan to do, unless you can convince me otherwise in the hearing". Not a good sign for our entertainment, but I'll keep hoping until the final ruling comes out and I wouldn't be surprised if this is appealed either way.
Personally, I think there's scope for appeal or even changing the judge's mind here here. I think the judge is right on the first and most important factor (livestream is transformative) but I think the transformative value is low and the other factors should all have counted against Denims while the judge gives her a pass on "amount of work" and "effect of use on potential market", and if you give Ethan 3/4 factors it feels like that's enough to pass judgement on the pleadings. On top of that, his description of each factor that Denims wins on makes it sound pretty close, but then he turns around and says "3/4 factors strongly favor Defendant". That seems like an easy callout for appeal, along with the effect of use - with her and the mods saying "come watch with us and avoid giving Ethan money" it seems very hard to find in her favor for that factor, regardless of the fact that she adds "sharp criticism" (lmao). Also a lot of Stebbins citations, our favorite turkey is fast becoming a maker of copyright caselaw. Maybe they'll start teaching him in law schools.
Jersh posting a DCMA notice to his website = contributory copyright infringement
Denims blanky watching a copyrighted video on stream in silence for 15 minute stretches = fair use
Jersh posting a DCMA notice to his website = contributory copyright infringement
Denims blanky watching a copyrighted video on stream in silence for 15 minute stretches = fair use
Chaos gods said roll for initiative.
Pretty much ethan has build & make argument to rock the boat.
Has to prove copyright has more weight that fair use . (how far the fair use rules go)
Both sargon & ethan did better job than denims. Nitendo/corporate sperging
This is a tentative ruling, so according to my research (not a lawfag) it's not final until after the hearing tomorrow. This is the judge saying "Here's what I plan to do, unless you can convince me otherwise in the hearing". Not a good sign for our entertainment, but I'll keep hoping until the final ruling comes out and I wouldn't be surprised if this is appealed either way.
Personally, I think there's scope for appeal or even changing the judge's mind here here. I think the judge is right on the first and most important factor (livestream is transformative) but I think the transformative value is low and the other factors should all have counted against Denims while the judge gives her a pass on "amount of work" and "effect of use on potential market", and if you give Ethan 3/4 factors it feels like that's enough to pass judgement on the pleadings. On top of that, his description of each factor that Denims wins on makes it sound pretty close, but then he turns around and says "3/4 factors strongly favor Defendant". That seems like an easy callout for appeal, along with the effect of use - with her and the mods saying "come watch with us and avoid giving Ethan money" it seems very hard to find in her favor for that factor, regardless of the fact that she adds "sharp criticism" (lmao). Also a lot of Stebbins citations, our favorite turkey is fast becoming a maker of copyright caselaw. Maybe they'll start teaching him in law schools.
Ah thanks for the info. Realistically, how often do final rulings end up contradicting, or at least changing substantially the findings of, a tentative ruling? I guess I'm asking how likely is it for the lawyers to come up with a vastly better argument after a tentative ruling before the final hearing. Can they ask for more time?
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
True, I hate reaction youtubers too but I still cheer for anything that favors fair use. I know how gay the copyright system is in Europe and anything that keeps it less restrictive is a win imo. Denims losing isn't worth more copyright fags going around taking down stuff they don't like. Again, I get that this is subjective, and I understand why someone would have a "we win regardless of which side loses here" attitude. total streamer death regardless
Jersh posting a DCMA notice to his website = contributory copyright infringement
Denims blanky watching a copyrighted video on stream in silence for 15 minute stretches = fair use
has more weight that fair use . (how far the fair use rules go)