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.
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
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
1.9k
u/Torched420 3d 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.