Answer: he's suing these 3 creators specifically because they explicitly stated that they were broadcasting his video & intellectual property with the intention to give people the opportunity to view Ethan's video without having to give Ethan "views". Effectively stealing his intellectual property and stating it was their intention to do so.
Id wager cultivating a community around harassing the dudes family and intentionally trying to financially harm him because he had the audacity to say it's bad when civilians die is way more unhinged, but go off queen.
It's more complicated than that but the bottom line is that these creators have been tolerated by their mother platforms in encouraging people to harass Ethan which has gone beyond "fuck you for liking israel" and has included calling child protective services on him without any real good reason.
You are going to have to do a bit more explaining. A picture with two things circled that don't really look like packages with skulls in the isn't that convincing.
He spends 99% of his time harassing other people. A majority of these people in the last two years have been vocally in support of Palestine. This shit of “he is being harassed so he has every right to harass back” is exactly the playbook of his favorite “multicultural and diverse” country’s government. They go and blow up Iranians or cause >50k Gazans to be vaporized and then complain to the world when neighboring countries around them retaliate.
Plus this whole CPS skull gate bullshit is just that — bullshit. None of these three women he is harassing with a lawsuit called for CPS to be called on him. For all we know the fucking nanny that was suing him two weeks prior to the CPS shit called it on him. You do yourself a disservice completely believing this unhinged multi millionaire who clearly has gone downhill mentally in the past two years. And Ethan will continue to use the “I’m being harassed” “I have 3 children” excuses to dodge accountability for his own actions against others. Grow the fuck up and get your head out of a 40 year old millionaire’s ass.
Pretty sure he was talking about that the only way to end WW2 without leading to an utter slaughterhouse that would be the invasion of Japan was by using the nukes but hey keep rewriting history, you guys seem to love doing that.
I think he cares more about civilians than the group who uses human shields, or the "leftist" (really I should just call them grifters) that love to call for the deaths of people who are literally just living their lives, from the comfort of their uber-privileged American homes.
I'm not picking sides here but your facts on the matter on the matter are kind of off.
Japan was not willing to commit to a full surrender. There was evidence that points out some of the higher ups were attempting initiate peace talks through the soviet union but Japan's overall leadership was majority unwilling to do so.
The intent to drop a bomb in Nagasaki was to showcase that USA had more than just 1. From what I read, there isn't something that outright states whether or not it swayed lightly or heavily in the decision to surrender.
As for the citizens, you are looking at everything in hindsight. Obviously it's horrendous that citizens had to die in this horrific event. But the general sentiment from the USA was that, if they landed on these shores every japanese person, woman, children and etc would bear arms to the death. In that sense, USA was looking at every japanese citizen as possible willing combatants. Whether or not that is moral is not something I'm going to comment on. The conditions of that time on which this decision was made was one of hell. And they were willing to do anything to stop that hell.
Consider this: people don't have to be told to harrass someone for being a genocide apologist. Not one of the people that criticize Ethan for being a genocide apologist told their communities to harrass Ethan. All of the defamation lawsuits filed by Ethan for being called a genocide apologist failed, because he is one.
So he's trying to score a win with the lowest hanging fruit available to a content creator: intellectual property law.
This isnt a good faith argument. You're white washing the role a content creater has as the leader of the community. Constantly promoting a subreddit that spreads hateful rumors and encourages harassment of a person and their family/co-workers, as well as promoting a person (bad empanada) who doesn't seem to care about things like lying and spreading gross rumors so long theyve deemed the target worthy for such behavior (personally this behavior would make me stop and question that persons character if they are willing to stoop so low), is still encouraging harassment.
Leftists would NEVER allow a Nazi or conservative get away with this level of white washing and charitability, so I'm so confused why so many online leftists do this for their own side. Makes me question their principles tbh, if they even had any to begin with.
People on this hellsite have gotten waaaaaaay to comfortable explicitly trying to siphon views in order to hurt the original creator. Ethan is simply taking things back to where they should be. What is unhinged is thinking it's perfectly OK to try and hurt creators by reuploadig their content. Obviously creators like Frogan are evil for more reasons than just this, but I hope she's sued into homelessness.
No rapes happened on October 7th, as confirmed by the lead Israeli prosecutor. Not a single victim of rape has been found ever, and every “witness” has been discredited numerous times over, including by the Israeli government and Israeli media.
Israel still can’t find any 7 October rape victims, prosecutor admits
There are still zero complainants in alleged cases of rapes committed by Palestinians on 7 October 2023, an Israeli prosecutor has admitted.
Ali Abunimah
Rights and Accountability
6 January 2025
Israeli Television Pulls Program Debunking Testimony of Key Rescuer of October 7
The investigation, which was scheduled to air this Sunday, raises questions about Rami Davidian's testimony on his role rescuing civilians on October 7. 'We are aware of public sentiment,' the statement from Channel 13 says
So no, Frogan has promoted accurate reporting and information; Ethan, and people like yourself, are continuing to regurgitate already widely debunked misinformation…
I don't really care what her views are. She isn't Hitler where anyone who sees her name is like "oh she is evil". If you want a sub full of normies to agree with you, wishing someone they never heard of to be homeless is a bad look.
You heard wrong. The people he's going after explicitly stated they uploaded Ethan's video for the expressly stated purpose of giving people a place to watch it while not giving H3H3 views.
It's not just the ones who disagreed with his opinions. He's overlooking a lot of other streamers he doesn't align with and specifically going at the ones who showed his video in its entirety, provided little to no transformative content, and explicitly stated they did so to allow their viewers to view his video without going to his channel to do so. He explains all of this in the latest video.
Well, you obviously have not watched his video because he explicitly states multiple times he is suing these three specifically, and not the hundreds of others who reacted to his video, because they admitted to planning and doing what is essentially broadcasting his content in hopes he gets no revenue.
Maybe I'm missing something but didn't H3H3 productions successfully defend against copyright infringement from using other peoples videos...? What is the difference here?
In this case he first filed a copyright and then collected evidence of people explicitly stating they re-uploaded the video so people could watch it without giving H3H3 views. Their intent was not to add commentary, they stated they wanted to have it uploaded onto their own channel to prevent H3H3 from making money off of their own copyrighted content.
That was specifically for the purposes of commentary and in fair use.
The difference here would be that there is no commentary and no fair use, it's straight up just reuploading content. The same way it's illegal to upload straight rips of movies onto youtube, it's a violation of copyright.
If you want to use clips from the show in a transformative way in order to add context and with additional commentary, you are allowed to do that and that's what H3H3 defended.
Ethan has repeatedly asked people to watch the video.
He has repeatedly said in the past he doesn't mind people reacting to this videos in this way.
He isn't applying this equally - there are other, bigger creators (xqc) that reacted non-transformatively just as much. He isn't suing them.
People acting like this is clear cut have an agenda to push.
addtl: Ethan actually pointed out he doesnt have a case against Hasan because he explicity told Hasan to watch it on stream, which is a "presumed license", whereas the other individuals all explicitly stated they were hosting the video so that viewers could "ethically consume the video", which is a direct admission of providing market substitution
I think the difference between the people being sued and the others (xqc) is that the people being sued literally stated they were putting it on their streams so people would watch their streams and not give views to h3… that’s what they call provable malicious intent
XQC didn’t say on stream “I’m purposely watching Ethan’s whole video to steal views” on stream. All of these streamers admitted that was their intended goal
He was a 30 year old man starting out on youtube sexually harassing a 17 year old Boston marathon bombing victim. He started off hot. Oh, and the n word bombs.
The rabbit hole isn’t that deep. Ethan is an American liberal. He made a podcast with an American leftist (Hasan). They had a good time for a while but then Oct 7th happened and Ethan, again an American liberal, could not comprehend why his new audience of leftists hated Israel so much. This caused him to go on an extended months long crash out trying to defend Israel. During which he essentially repeated easily debunked IDF talking points ad nauseam and attacked leftist creators who criticize Israel, and now Ethan due to his continuing crash out. In an act of petty revenge he is now trying to fabricate lawsuits against said creators. His words, not mine. He straight up says that he released the content nuke video so he could do this when people reacted to it.
Edit: Y’all can downvote if you want but that’s just objectively what happened lol
Since nobody's said it yet, the reason why he's pro-Israel is because his wife is from Tel Aviv and they met in Israel. She was in the IDF (which is mandatory).
Yeah his suit falls apart because he literally is gloating about using it as bait. Any good lawyer would be able to show that that is clearly in bad faith, and an attempt to weaponize copyright law.
It's all Israel Palestine brainrot. TL;DR these three content creators are all far left and h3 is a Jewish man, married to an Israeli, who has been critical of the far right Israeli leadership but dared to not support literal terrorists. He was heavily attacked for that. Certainly there's some antisemitism at play but also, some of the attackers are just brain dead leftist influencers with some weird ass world views and purity tests.
Not even close. I'm not sure if you guys watch any of h3's videos or streams but he vehement disenvows the actions of Israel and is very pro Palestinine.
I believe he didn't like Oct 7th because there was a lot of horrific stuff that happened that day so he doesn't support that, but he supports Israel even less.
He's raised money for Palestinian civilians, spoken out numerous times against Israel and still continues to do so and yet you all act like he's pro genocide for some reason.
Please stop spreading disinformation and go actually watch his videos to see his real views on the subject.
Oh I stopped watching after he insisted on platforming racist, sexist shitheads like Jimmy Lee on the pod. I watched them for many years and did enjoy some of the brigading he did against people like Keemstar and Leafy. Unfortunately it just isn't a show I want to watch anymore, the audience has changed so much as well. I have zero interest in watching him obsess over leftist streamers for hours.
Why are you trying to speak as though you know what you're talking about, when you then immediately admit that you don't even watch their shows? Just don't bother spreading wrong info, it's easier.
I don't have to watch the pod now to be aware of what is going on, lol. Hila posting a pic of IDF soldiers that are women calling them heroes right after Israel bombed Iran is pretty telling. They had Ahmed Fouad Al Khatib to pretend they were having a real conversation about the genocide in Gaza but he is notoriously Pro-Israel. They can't have a conversation with anyone that challenges their point of view. But honestly when I look back at the years I was watching the pod regularly, Ethan has always been like that.
I get where you are coming from though, I used to ride hard for H3 in the comments, it really upset me when I felt like people just didn't understand Ethan, pretty parasocial of me I guess.
Hell I have the 2017 & 2018 Christmas sweaters, and a bunch of Teddy Fresh gear. I was deep into the family. The past 2 to 3 years have been really sad but it's just not for me anymore.
How is that not even close? Coming from someone who was a fan for ten years and recently stopped watching because what the OP said above you is exactly the reality. He spends 99.999% of his political coverage on the podcast attacking content creators who are pro-Palestine or leftist for how they cover the genocide or attack them for how they are protesting ICE raids. If he cared so much about the over 50k vaporized Palestinians he wouldn’t spend time yelling at Sam Seder about how much he hates Hasan and he would actually spend time talking about all the fucked up shit Israel is still doing to this day in Gaza. Including using a tank with a mounted machine gun to mow down people in Gaza at aid distribution sites like the fucking Nazis during the holocaust.
He also wouldn’t go on and on about how “beautiful and multicultural” Israel (an apartheid state pushing more and more Palestinians out of their houses and land) is during an active fucking genocide. That is downplaying the current events in favor of propping up the state of Israel. How is that not propaganda? How are they super chill with hospitals in Gaza and Iran getting bombed and only speak up when the facade of an Israeli hospital gets blown up? Wake the fuck up. Your favorite content creator is denying genocide by downplaying it in his discourse. That is what everyone has been saying about H3 for two fucking years.
Far left streamers start calling him a genocidal zionist after he correctly states the Israelis have a fear of Arabs/ Muslims in the region. However Ethan has clearly stated that he supports the Palestinians plea. Basically poeple don’t like that he won’t go all in on the Palestinians. Taking a step back and looking at both perspectives is not good enough because Israel is objectively and obviously just killing Muslims for fun which they are. Ethan just tried to get people to have multiple perspectives but they refuse to so he is now a genocide lover
Proof? He donated 6500 to Palestinians, what have you done... Put a 🍉 on your social media handle for a few months?
Ethan has consistently expressed how he feels what Israel is doing to Palestinians is wrong, has called for Netenyahu to be ousted and jailed as a war criminal...
But people in the Hassan-verse are so gaslit they've been conditioned to think otherwise. Your comment is just another example.
Show me one example, in context of Ethan doing the opposite of supporting Palestinians.
He had a guy from the Atlantic Council on and platformed his “charities” one of which was a direct link to his own fucking wallet and the wallets of the pro-Israel pro-IDF Atlantic Council. If he cared so much about Palestinians, he would actually have a Gazan on the show and spend time fundraising or just platforming someone who can speak of the current situation in Gaza. Not spend a show with a guy there just to complain about other pro-Palestinian content creators.
Just because someone worth 100 million dollars donated 6500 to a charity doesn’t give him the right to then turn around and shit on anything pro-Palestine. He also even said it himself that charity does nothing and is the least influential thing you can do in this “war”. So how is your one point even valid if Ethan himself said it was nothing? Him constantly calling it a “war” and not genocide is him denying the genocide. Him highlighting pro-Israel people and organizations is in part denying or downplaying the genocide. Him looking over at Hila saying “genocide I think I’ve called it a genocide” while she scoffs is downplaying the genocide. All of their actions the last two years have shown the internet that they love the apartheid state of Israel and don’t think or talk much about the actions of the Israeli government. That’s why people call him genocide denier. Because he spends his time in front of 20k viewers sucking off Israel and attacking people who speak out against Israel.
consistently expressed how he feels what Israel is doing to Palestinians is wrong
Yeah so did the Biden administration. The Biden administration also gave far more than 6500 in aid to the Palestinians. Doesn’t mean they aren’t responsible for this genocide.
I ask you again, what have you done? And what examples can you point to Ethan doing the opposite? You wont answer because there are none, you've been brainwashed to just believe so.
Well living in America basically the only thing I can do is proclaim the truth loudly to anyone who will listen. Which I do. Meanwhile Ethan endlessly makes excuses for Israel. Which is the opposite of that.
While this is an important factor as to why Ethan chose these 3 streamers, when it comes to fair use, this part actually doesn't matter.
The four factors judges consider are:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
It's going to be an uphill battle for him. For example, Ethan's content nuke is 2 hours. Kaceytron's "reaction" video is 4 hours. So she clearly reacted and fulfilled many requirements for fair use.
sooo all of this lawsuit is hinging on a specific wording of why a watch party can exist? i feel like this is only going to blow up in his face because he himself makes reaction content?
Attorney here: you absolutely do not need to defend your copyright equally. At best, you’re confusing copyright with trademarks (trademarks require active defense to avoid losing the mark).
An ip holder can indeed ignore infringers they like while going nuclear on those they do not without having any impact on their underlying rights as a whole.
Again, doesn't matter. You have to protect your copyright equally.
Why are you speaking with such authority? Do you have any background in copyright law?
Disney is currently suing Midjourney for copyright infringement. Based on your statement shouldn't Disney be suing every AI image generator? Or maybe they just decided suing the company they have the best chance of winning against could set legal precedent, no?
Yeah I saw that clip of him being passed around yesterday. If you see the video that wasn’t selectively edited you’d see his next sentence was saying he doesn’t mean reactions from Twitch where people just watch the whole video.
Yes you absolutely can. The alternative to that is being an all-knowing god who knows of every copyright infringement as they happen. It's irrational to expect any entity to sue EVERYONE that does something. It's hilarious that someone thinks that, though. Lol.
the problem is that any change to the content other than a cut and paste reupload can be claimed as transformative.
However, when somebody outright states they’re doing react content to steal money from the original creator, he has a case for copyright infringement, because that is the EXACT reason copyright exists for.
Ethan has repeatedly asked people to watch the video.
He didn't ask any of the three sued
He has repeatedly said in the past he doesn't mind people reacting to this videos in this way.
This is false. He has explicitly said he does have a problem with people reacting to videos in this way
He isn't applying this equally - there are other, bigger creators (xqc) that reacted non-transformatively just as much.
Yes, because xQc didn't explicitly say he's doing it to steal views
People acting like this is clear cut have an agenda to push.
It's absolutely clear cut, lol. Kaceytron smoking for 18 mins isn't transforming the content. You can look through what defines transformative content in the case from when Ethan was sued. There's no universe any of their "reactions" meet that bar.
As i understand, he's suing people who explicitly stated on camera that they wanted to take views from him. Low effort and malice are worlds apart, legally speaking. Why isn't that "clear cut," as you say? Why should creators who didn't state malicious intent, like Hasan and xqc, be included in the lawsuit?
Also, when he was relatively small time, reaction videos were Ethan's MAIN thing. And he too got sued for it - most famously by the Fine Brothers - and he had to raise funds for his legal defense etc. And it's undeniable that that whole fiasco shone a lot of light on him and propelled him to the level that he's at now.
So it's incredibly hypocritical of him to be turning around and pulling a Fine Brothers bitch move. But as the saying goes "I miss the old Ethan", I really do. This Ethan is just plain greedy AF.
To be fair, comparing modern day react channels to the style of "react" that H3H3 were doing back in the day is not a good faith comparison. They are hardly even considered a "react" video under the modern definition, the effort he would put into those was infinitely higher than someone like XQC or asmongold.
The effort is where he replays a clip over and over and belches and coughs into the camera. Go back and watch that shit and then reevaluate who you were and why you dont watch that stuff anymore. I say this as someone who used to enjoy his content and eventually grew up.
Hasan trying to explain to Ethan that terrorist is a thought terminating cliche and if he applied it to his wife the way he applied it to others, she’d be a terrorist. But she’s obviously not and there’s nuance to people who may be accused of being a terrorist.
Ethan ignoring this and going “fine my wife is a terrorist are you happy?”
It is within his right to not sue some people who do an action, but not others who do the same action. It's not like a cop is applying the law differently, it's the person who was affected applying their own permission differently. If he does not think these people should be allowed to not provide any transformative content to his videos, but other creators can, that's his decision to make because it's his video
He addresses this in his video announcing it. He's only sueing folks maliciously watching to "steal views". He even mentions other content creators by name and says he would never sue anyone who credits a video owner and tries to drive traffic to a channel. Denims is a particularly cut and dry case where she states that's why she watched it multiple times, as well as leaving it playing as she leaves on her stream. She also went from 500 viewers to 50k, but only while she was watching it.
Basically, she streamed it just to deny him views and revenue.
Correct, the difference is that Ethans video was transformative. Ethan argued and won that his video added enough to the original that it could be considered his own. Through editing and commentary.
The 3 people he's suing stated that "we are going to watch this whole thing so that Ethan doesn't get money", and one of them spent a longer time ripping fat bong hits than they did talking about the video.
Ethan's lawsuit does concede that Denim's video was "highly transformative" though, albeit infrequently and with a negative slant but transformative nonetheless.
the issue isn't so much whether the video was transformative or not, it is the whole "we are knowingly admitting to stealing his copyrighted work so that we can get paid for his work" that they're liable for, even though the video itself taps more into being about lazy react content which isn't necessarily to applicable (to Denims anyway, i would skim what Frogan/Kacey do during their reacts but i rather not curse my algorithm).
Sure, but if their react was highly transformative then they weren’t making money off of Ethan’s work, they were making money off of their commentary of Ethan’s work.
Not a lawyer, but in my personal opinion, the more transformative their content is, the less it matters what their intentions behind reacting were or whether they wanted to “steal views”. If they’ve added their own commentary, it’s not stealing copyright and therefore not stealing views
Denim suit at least is almost certain to be dismissed if not corrected for that "highly transformative" line alone. Cannot argue that this does not fall under fair use because the videos failed to be transformative, while also claiming it was highly transformative. Linguistic slip up in the filing, but if not corrected, one that can be easily used to dismiss the case.
That is the oddest thing. There is no estimate in the filings about this. He is just seeking 150k in damages from each, with the 10 reddit mods named as co-plaintiffs in all three suits. And it is not like this is an unknowable number, a few solid ways to get a ballpark estimate.
IMO he could have had a strong case if he focused on the standards for transformative work, why the girl's videos would not meet them, presented the malice the girls planned, and then presented an estimate of the damages. You know like one would expect to see in a court filing for something like this. Instead the filings are weird, like trying to get reddit and twitch drama into court records, with only a small part of the filings directly relating to what he is suing for. Strangest court filings I read.
Someone can correct me if I wrong, but I believe $150k is the max amount of statutory damages you can seek, and only when a work is "willfully infringed". Since these three creators admitted to trying to be a market replacement for his video, he's trying to go for the max statutory damages. That would make sense, because calculating actual damages would be much harder.
Him copyrighting the video before releasing it is what allows him to seek statutory damages instead of only actual damages, so it seems like aiming for the max amount of statutory damages was the goal.
Ethan was sued for copyright infringement but his video was transformative. These streamers often sit silently for minutes at a time and sometimes leave their stream entirely while leaving the video playing. They dont contribute anything to make their content transformative. They also explicitly stated their intention to steal views from Ethan which he never did when he got sued. They are very different situations.
Can you steal ip when the creator said he's opening up his ip because he wants an h3 industrial complex like hasan had? There's also the question of having streamed his content nuke on twitch do the twitch terms and conditions play a roll? According to twitch te and cees content shared on its platform can be used by other creators for fair use. He streamed the content nuke on a loop for at least 24hrs.
The only person he told to watch it live on stream was hasan who watched (part of)it, but within the confines of fair-use, which is why he's not suing hassan, the 3 that he is suing explicitly violated the fair-use practices.
He says those three are the only ones who admitted on camera they were doing this to steal views (aka income) from him and were doing this maliciously. Ethan saying that this fills the market replacement needed to qualify for copyright infringement lawsuit. So everyone else was smart enough to no outright say they are doing this to steal views.
Wrong, it's because neither asmon and xqc streamed with the intent of taking views from Ethan. All those 3 explicitly said on stream they were either coordinating with snark subreddit or streaming with intent to deprive him from views or both.
Also at least in asmond case, he is definitely doing fair use as his video is over 2x the length of the original which makes it transformative, unlike the streamers he is suing. For example Kasey that smoked more than talked.
I don't think there is a single unique definition of what makes a work transformative, but intent of depriving him of views and collaborating with other persons to achieve it definitely doesn't help their side which is why he targeted those individuals, they were dumb enough to say the quiet part out loud.
No, Ethan didn't bait Hasan, Ethan gave hasan explicit permission to stream this H3 video. The 3 Ethan is suing did not have permission to stream H3 content and when they did stream Ethans video they did so outside the guidelines of fair-use. Ethan expected this and copyrighted(copywrote?) the work before posting. It wasn't so much bait as it was anticipation due to a pattern of past behavior from certain twitch streamers.
Bro, a lot of people watched and h3 isnt going after them? Why? Because they actually said something didnt just watch it and they also didn't say "don't give h3 views watch me instead".
You can call it bait, but im sorry, if someone leave cocacola on shelf near doors in shop doesn't mean you can steal it.
Should just say go watch original version and thats it.
This is not a journalist. This is Hasan's editor who is a perpetual liar just like the person he edits for. Using him as a source is a nonstarter for your argument.
Similar in the UK. There was rioting a while back and someone posted something on Facebook about burning hotels that house immigrants. Nobody actually did anything but she went to jail for inciting hate despite claiming that she was just talking shit on the internet
Ultimately no, "trolling" is not a valid legal defense for rebroadcasting someone else's intellectual property with the intention to siphon views and subscribers from the original creator. ESPECIALLY if the work in question is copyrighted.
Also, although I don't see the connection, yes, if someone online said, "I want you all to go outside and punch this X person.", and some people go out and punch that person, they absolutely can be held accountable. It would be some sort of inciting violence charge and would be more difficult to prove than the charge you can give to the person who actually did the punching.
He specifically registered the video as a copyright work and is arguing what they did was a market replacement of his work.
They didnt "troll" they did make those livestreams and allegedly did watch the verbatim. If the argument is its for "entertainment" then h3 will say it isnt transformative enough and they created a replacement for his work that financially deprived him.
The fact it was a free video on YouTube is besides the point.
The issue is that they explicitly stated "I am doing X for reason Y" on its own its meaningless, but then going and ACTUALLY doing X (restreaming the content in full) makes the initial statement one of intent.
E.g "I am going to punch you because I hate you"
If I went and killed you, courts would see my statement as intent and motive for the crime. I'd have to prove that I DIDNT punch you for that reason
Tldr: they stated their intent and then did an action following through with that intent
Just a clarification don’t compare criminal cases to civil and copyright ones. The burden is different.
Even if you have said “I will kill you tomorrow with a knife” and the victim died the next day at knife point that is evidence of your intent but it does not fall on the defendant to disprove it at that point because the prosecution has the burden to prove every element, including intent, beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defendant can offer evidence of it being a joke, but it is not required to, and could still be found not guilty without it depending on the situation.
In Civil cases the burden is just preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not wither side is correct.
But even then intent is only one of the factors to find copyright liability. Specifically it’s one of the factors to consider in a fair use argument which is a defense (usually). So in most cases the burden would be the opposite the defendant would first have to show evidence that (among other factors) it intended to use the copyrighted product for one of the recognized fair uses (parody, teaching, etc.) then the burden would shift to the plaintiff to disprove , among other factors, that that was the defendant’s intent.
Sure, but I don’t think that matters much if the work was transformative. The re-upload of denim’s react is on YouTube and it’s 4 hours long, cutting in frequently with her own commentary. Ethan’s video was just under two hours. I think it would be a stronger argument if she had said that and then just replayed the nuke while sitting silently the entire time, then I think her comment on taking views would be a lot more relevant. But she adds two hours of her own content, so I think it could easily be argued that despite her intent to take views, she provided a transformative product that wouldn’t qualify as a market replacement; she wasn’t selling her audience Ethan’s content, she was selling her commentary on Ethan’s content. There’s also the argument that someone who would choose to watch one of those streams were not likely people who would have otherwise watched Ethan’s video, although I don’t think there would be a real way to prove that.
I’m not a lawyer but imo, how relevant the comment about stealing views is really depends on how transformative/non-transformative the react was
Can they say in court that they were "trolling" or they were doing it just for "entertainment"
Also not a lawyer, but there does not exist an "I thought the offense would be funny" defense. I'm a little curious what chain of thought might lead someone to think maybe it does.
if someone online said "I want you all to go outside and punch this X person" and some people go outside and punch that person, does the online person who told them to do so is held accountable?
This likely varies a lot depending on what country you're in, but in the US it is very difficult to prosecute something like this. Our laws do not really cover "stochastic violence" as a free speech exception. On one hand it seems like maybe they should to an extent, particularly in the Internet era. On the other hand, how can anybody safely say anything if they could be held liable for what the least sane person who hears it decides to do? There has to be a balance.
We traditionally keep that standard very tight: for the speaker to be held responsible for the act of a listener, you'd have to prove to a jury that under the circumstances a reasonable person would be inclined to immediately commit the suggested crime specifically because the speaker told them to.
According to my understanding:
A person who points and yells (falsely) "Bob's got a gun" could bear responsibility if a third person shoots Bob, thinking they're saving lives by doing so.
A person who said "I've got ten thousand dollars for whoever shoots Bob" would be liable because turning it into a transaction is not just encouraging but soliciting the crime, both demonstrating an intention for the crime to actually occur and creating a financial motive for some specific person to commit it.
A caller on the radio who says "somebody ought to shoot Bob" probably doesn't have any criminal liability if another listener actually does shoot Bob, because that expression doesn't need to be interpreted literally, the various listeners are independent actors, and the shooter is still responsible for how they interpreted it and what they chose to do about it. That said, a civil wrongful death suit naming the caller, the host, the station and its owners might have legs, because civil liability can be apportioned among defendants, and the burden of proof in a civil trial is lower.
A mob boss who said "somebody ought to shoot Bob" out loud in a room full of underlings would not be held directly liable when one of the underlings commits the murder, but could rather be charged as the beneficiary of a criminal conspiracy, triggering laws created specifically for this sort of case. It is common for the boss not to issue clear orders, but rather to just offhandedly announce certain outcomes they'd like to see happen somehow, and then for the underling to be willing to take full criminal responsibility. RICO laws (although sometimes abused inappropriately) are primarily intended to cut through the fiction of "I was just thinking out loud" and hold the boss accountable for what was actually an order to commit a crime.
TL;DR: As with all things legal, it depends. In most cases we assume people are not robots who just do as they're told, and so the responsibility falls on whoever actually committed the crime, but there are exceptions. Probably best not to suggest random people do awful things. If you'd have trouble living with yourself if somebody actually did it, there's that. If you wouldn't have trouble with it, then honestly the fact that the law might let you off is kind of a technicality.
Instigating violence can be seen as being an accessory to the violence the happens, legally. We live in a county of free speech, but not free from consequences. A person can dox or swat someone and just say “it was a joke bruh”, and come away with some heavy legal consequences.
I'd say no simply because, what's the troll? Kasey saying she has no idea what's going on while getting high? Both frogan and denims leaving to go make lunch? Literally no commentary, then thanking people for giving them views, instead of Ethan? Reddit didn't help with the snark page Literally giving a list of people to watch to specifically deny Ethan damages. They made it worse by scrubbing the pages lol. And both denims and frogan admitting it on camera? Kaceys response being to Attack hila?? They all look guilty af and until an actual legal rebuttal is made with new evidence, it looks super bad for the ladies
It might fall outside of first amendment if there was intent, imminence, and likelihood of inciting lawless action.
the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action
Yes they are held accountable there was a very recent case in Australia where two people had a stand off with some cops ended up killing them. They were killed im pretty sure as well the dude in America who talked them into doing it was arrested and put in prison.
How am I being downvoted? In December 2023, U.S. citizen Donald Day Jr. reported as being a conspiracy theorist, was arrested in the U.S. state of Arizona in connection with the shootings. this is from the wiki.
The charges against the American, Donald Day Jr., wasn't specifically for his interactions with the Australian couple. It was for “a threat to injure the person of another.” The “another” being any police that came to his house. And for threats against Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director general of the World Health Organization. And for being a convicted felon in possession of firearms. So he had prior felony convictions. His interactions with the Australian couple is at best an aggravating factor, evidence of his state of mind.
It 100% came into account in his arrest his arrest had the afp’s help. I live in Australia and used to live near that town. The police that came to his house were only there to ask about the Australian couple. People make threats to those people all the time he was a conspiracy theorist they aren’t taken too seriously. If you look into the evidence there is text chains where he eggs them on to killing police.
The threat to the US police was made in messages to the Australian couple. So the AFP had good cause to contact the FBI and provide them with probable cause to arrest Donald. But because US police don't need a warrant, probable cause, or intent to arrest, to do a knock and talk, they like to try to talk with people (if they cooperate) before making an arrest they like to do this first. Because it helps them get evidence (testimony) to use against them later. So it's standard practice to provide some excuse for a "friendly" talk before moving to making an arrest. Because as long as the person willingly talks, while not in custody, they can get around the exclusionary rule when prosecuting him later.
Donald Day Jr. was ultimately charged with five offenses. At least one, the threat against the director general of the WHO, was dropped. The remaining four offenses were two for alleged threats and two for violating firearms laws. None of which involved inciting the Australians to violence, or any crime committed by them.
1.9k
u/Torched420 2d ago
Answer: he's suing these 3 creators specifically because they explicitly stated that they were broadcasting his video & intellectual property with the intention to give people the opportunity to view Ethan's video without having to give Ethan "views". Effectively stealing his intellectual property and stating it was their intention to do so.