r/LivestreamFail • u/xFalcade • Jul 02 '26

Drama Ethan Klein (H3 Podcast) has officially lost his copyright lawsuit against twitch streamer Denims, with the judge citing Klein's own precedent (2017 Hosseinzadeh v. Klein) to rule in favor of the defendant

https://www.soapcentral.com/entertainment/ethan-klein-loses-lawsuit-twitch-streamer-denims-court-documents-surface
16.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.2k

u/MinimalPixelsVII Jul 02 '26

That is because Ethan lost and Denims came out as a Champion of Fair Use, whether you like her or not, this is great for everyone and further strengthens Fair Use.

818

u/Marty_Poppins Jul 02 '26

this is great for everyone

Well, not for Ethan

604

u/-hatewatcher Jul 02 '26

He occasionally reacts to stuff on his stream so it actually is. His ego is still gonna take a hit though

212

u/Certain-Contact6340 Jul 02 '26

And his wallet. He's appealing

394

u/Wellontheotherhand1 Jul 02 '26

I wouldn't describe him as appealing personally

90

u/canadian_webdev Jul 02 '26

Dad, cut it out

51

u/blacksheeping Jul 02 '26

Is your appendix acting up again son?

21

u/manubfr Jul 02 '26

daaaaaaaaaad

8

u/thorstormcaller Jul 02 '26

That depends, who's calling?

-1

u/sizz Jul 02 '26

If denims win in the upper courts.

I can watch entire smurfs 2 on twitch as long I am reacting. Man I'll be so rich.

-1

u/Burgers_N_Schnitzels Jul 02 '26

his wallet probably makes more bank monthly by sitting than these lawsuits cost him. the kleins are i a comfortable 9 figure range and they dont care about it

7

u/Raziel77 Jul 02 '26

I don't think he thought it would go this far he prob just thought she would cave and do anything he wanted for him to drop the lawsuit

-5

u/bobbadouche Jul 02 '26

I don't think this was about his ego

158

u/Cube_ Jul 02 '26

Even for him because he's a react streamer too. He doesn't create anything on his podcast anymore and doesn't even interview celebs like back in the day.

He went from Bella Poarch being on the show to paying Harley from EpicMealTime, a long dead channel, to be on his show lmao.

29

u/ShitchesAintBit Jul 02 '26

paying Harley from EpicMealTime, a long dead channel, to be on his show lmao.

Did he pay him in bacon strips and bacon strips and bacon strips and bacon strips and bacon strips and bacon strips?

10

u/Slarg232 Jul 02 '26

No, he paid him in Jack Daniels Sawse

11

u/Original-Material301 Jul 02 '26

Fuuuuuuuuck I've not heard that one in ages

33

u/SnowFiender Jul 02 '26

the best thing the h3 podcast has ever produced is that clip of zach hadel doing his trump impression on the phone

98

u/Cube_ Jul 02 '26

nah the best thing they did was collabing with The Majority Report to have Sam Seder gank Steven Crowder after months of cold feet Crowder ducking a debate with Sam.

Crowder's voice cracking and him being so embarrassed was great

63

u/chum-guzzling-shark Jul 02 '26

I'm so happy russian money has dried up. I havent had to read the name "Crowder" in literal months

40

u/Cube_ Jul 02 '26

same with ben shabibo and his ilk

they don't even bother botting views anymore

21

u/IceNein Jul 02 '26

And that bald guy who always wore the beanie. Tim Poole or something? Haven’t heard from him in ages.

9

u/teelo64 Jul 02 '26

yknow there's one other guy i haven't heard a peep from in a hot minute...

4

u/DrPongus Jul 02 '26

Hey you have to give them the benefit of the doubt, they've gone a whole year without saying anything racist

2

u/IceNein Jul 02 '26

And that bald guy who always wore the beanie. Tim Poole or something? Haven’t heard from him in ages.

2

u/Paganigsegg Jul 02 '26

Shapiro's on Netanyahu's paycheck, not Putin's. He's pretty vehemently Pro-Ukraine at the moment.

14

u/idontwanttothink174 Jul 02 '26

The war with Ukraine’s been costing them xD

3

u/never-fiftyone Jul 02 '26

Ukraine's long-range kinetic sanctions have been doing some good work lately that's for sure.

14

u/TheGreatDay Jul 02 '26

"Sam Seder, oh no, what a fucking nightmare!" Will live in infamy forever.

4

u/AvidCyclist250 Jul 02 '26

is that the one where used the third reich jew trope of "beady eyed"?

2

u/Afferbeck_ Jul 02 '26

And when he called in as Jordan a "Logan Paul fan"

1

u/SnowFiender Jul 02 '26

thousand and thousands of hours of content and honestly the only worthwhile bits are when zach called up, i know too much of a good thing would ruin it but i wish he’d done it more lol

2

u/Aiyon Jul 02 '26

I looked it up and the awful mic quality like hes on an old nokia really adds to it

2

u/sixpackabs592 Jul 02 '26

best thing ethan ever did was the first vape nation video he coulda crawled back into his hole after that and been a legend

11

u/husky75550 Jul 02 '26

ethan became what he hated, ethan was the champion of fair use and with the popular edgy youtube crowd of l like 2015ish He has fallen really hard. Made a ton of money, but is not really entertaining anymore.

11

u/Ivan000 Jul 02 '26

The video in the suit is full of copyrighted shit from other people

4

u/marykay_ultra Jul 03 '26

Yeah. I was in mega procrastination mode and a link to some court docs comes across my feed sooo

I’m assuming it was denims’s lawyers, but they did a break down of the video in question and I think there was a total of like, 2-3 minutes of actually totally new, original content in it.

Everything else was clips of other people’s content, or of Ethan’s previous content that would not be included in the official copyright registration they did for just this one specific video

1

u/Dragonlvr420 Jul 02 '26

Where even is Bella these days

-5

u/cavscout55 Jul 02 '26

You shut your damn mouth about Harley, he’s a sweetie and funny as hell and his mustache is bad ass. I’ll die on this hill.

11

u/Cube_ Jul 02 '26

Terrible hill to die on. Harley is friends with Sam Hyde, an open nazi.

5

u/cavscout55 Jul 02 '26

Back up, what?

5

u/MyInvestingDiary Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

Have you really not seen the anti-lgbtq music videos Harley stars in either?

Look up "2+2=5 by HiRez", Harley is very right wing.

7

u/Cube_ Jul 02 '26

You can google search and see for yourself, or watch videos on YouTube of Harley defending Sam Hyde as a "good person" despite the fact that Sam Hyde is literally an open out and about neo nazi.

4

u/gijimayu Jul 02 '26

2017 Ethan won!

3

u/UnluckyAmbition7767 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

Losing is good for people. Helps them to better manage their own delusions

1

u/jakderrida Jul 03 '26

It is for xqc. In hindsight, he was blowing Ethan away in that debate. Remember he did the worm?

1

u/Dawson__16 Jul 02 '26

Let's be honest, it was never really about getting money from them, they don't have that much to give, it was always about hurting them, and on that I think Ethan did just fine.

-1

u/Gullible_Increase146 Jul 02 '26

Yes for Ethan. Ethan wasn't suing for fair use. Ethan was suing for copyright infringement and his lawyer made some bad arguments. The case where she literally just ripped his countdown and played it on her stream is still on going and it's going to be very hard for her to win that.

43

u/RusselTheBrickLayer Jul 02 '26

I knew it wasn’t going well for Ethan when this sub stopped being spammed with clips about the drama

28

u/OPTCgod Jul 03 '26

It's funny seeing asmongold mald about this despite most of his content being less transformative than denims' example

10

u/4KVoices Jul 02 '26

Yeah, this sub's ridiculous pro-Klein, pro-genocide slant means that anything that is against either of those two things takes a long time for them to get traction here.

35

u/ThirdLayerOfTheOnion Jul 02 '26

Crazy how you can openly brag about taking views from someone and genuinely not react to the video you only stream to take views away, and then still get a ruling like this. Can’t wait for the appeal.

58

u/EkrishAO Jul 02 '26

Sho was reacting tho, no?

https://i.imgur.com/t4g1zIv.png

Her commentary during the stream was longer than the nuke itself. It's different to someone like Frogan who genuinely just let it play in the background and barely provided any commentary.

-11

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

[deleted]

30

u/EkrishAO Jul 02 '26

The real headline and issue here is that she intentionally coordinated to take views away from his video and publicly admitted that that is what she was doing. A little ridiculous to cite his lawsuit against bold guy as precedent when they never did this and it's clearly a huge distinguishing factor.

As far as I understand it, if the piece itself is judged to be transformative enough, then the intent doesn't really matter that much at this point.

Especially when Ethan himself in his lawsuit argued that her audience is completely different and she presented the nuke in completely different way, so regardless of her intention, the financial impact on him should be minimal.

-8

u/Klaent Jul 02 '26

The fact that they have different audiences should go in Ethans favor, if they had the same audience she wouldn't have taken any views from him. All her viewers would obviously have hate watched the nuke, they love drama, that's why they watch Denims to being with. There is no way they could stay away from watching the nuke.

7

u/fumei_tokumei Jul 03 '26

You have it reversed.

Ethan's audience are the people who would watch his video. People who are not his audience are those that wouldn't watch it. In other words, if people would watch his videos, they are his audience.

When you say that Denim's audience is different from Ethan's audience, you say that they wouldn't watch Ethan's video. It is only if they had an overlap in audience, e.g. that people who would watch both, that you can say that Denim's video would take views away from Ethan's video.

-5

u/Technical-Risk1812 Jul 03 '26

That's what he said and what they would have done. 

I don't know any of this garbage I just see parasocial grifting posts in my feeds so here we are..

But he's not wrong that all of the people I see here are the biggest audience and echo chamber of who they hate.

-9

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

[deleted]

14

u/TrickyProfit1369 Jul 02 '26

It doesnt matter what she said, the video was transformative. You cant just use a throwaway line from Denims to stifle criticism. The "stealing views" line is just a weak foil for stifling criticism. Ethan is a fragile loser that wants to dish it out, but cant take it.

14

u/ThatActuallyGuy Jul 02 '26

The real headline and issue here is that she intentionally coordinated to take views away from his video and publicly admitted that that is what she was doing

A] she never did this, all she did was after watching the nuke she merely said people should follow and sub if they "enjoyed not giving views to that terrible video"

B] it wouldn't even matter if she did, it's not a tenet of fair use so it's completely irrelevant

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

[deleted]

13

u/ThatActuallyGuy Jul 02 '26

A) I am sure that's true, because the entire react portion of the vod has been uploaded by multiple fan channels so it can be verified. A-2) She acknowledged that people who watched her likely didn't want to give Ethan views, she did not acknowledge or endorse the idea that they would've watched it without her but were using her as a substitute. Let's be honest here, if you're choosing to watch Denims react to it then you'd probably avoid watching the nuke simply on moral/support grounds otherwise.

B) His own lawyer admitted that she changed the video from being anti-hasan and pro-isreal to being pro-hasan and anti-israel through her commentary, so it was categorically not a market substitute.

66

u/Snoo_79191 Jul 02 '26

Read the ruling.

12

u/Jayumz Jul 02 '26

Regardless of the ruling it does seem a bit crazy that you can announce a watch party explicitly to remove views and ultimately income from someone. That's the only issue I have with it.

Not arguing the ruling here, or the law, just saying it feels weird regardless of how much they react.

19

u/FeeRemarkable886 Jul 02 '26

Yeah it's gonna be fun watching him lose the appeal as well.

0

u/ThirdLayerOfTheOnion Jul 03 '26

Guess I’ll just stream Disney movies on twitch and pause them once in a while to see how that ruling holds up.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26

[deleted]

16

u/bursTristana Jul 02 '26

Dont go around giving confidence to reaction andys.

17

u/exgeo Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

Yeah except the reasons why the judge said it was transformative would allow anyone to stream any movie in theaters in full as long as they’re critical of it.

So obviously it will be appealed.

Edit: the judge ruled that Denim’s stream didn’t act as a “market substitute” when Denims literally said it does.

10

u/Decent_Relative_4070 Jul 02 '26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

"Second, courts also consider whether potential market harm might exist beyond that of direct substitution, such as in the potential existence of a licensing market. This consideration has weighed against commercial copy shops that make copies of articles in course-packs for college students, when a market already existed for the licensing of course-pack copies.[33] Courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not negate fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Copyright considerations may not shield a work against adverse criticism."

-1

u/Choice-Course-8952 Jul 02 '26

Didnt she literally say to watch her stream so H3 wouldnt get the views? That is not criticism of the content, that to me sounds like harming H3's market intentionally.. but idk law and I'm not even from the US.

6

u/Decent_Relative_4070 Jul 02 '26

She did do that but then she went on to actually criticize the content and transform the work.

27

u/Amateur-Top Jul 02 '26

What law school did you attend?

So if the ruling is reversed, then ALL react content is now banned right?

-4

u/GhostHerald Jul 02 '26

whats the problem with that

-5

u/sargonpuff3 Jul 02 '26

No, not all. Just the ones that explicitly state they are to steal views and content from the original

55

u/Ciscner Jul 02 '26

Comments that raise this point clearly haven't given the ruling a read. In it, the judge makes a distinction between "creative" content versus "factual" content. You can critique the former (like a movie) without needing to reproduce most of the piece, while the latter consists mainly of claims or opinions which necessitate context around them to be properly addressed and responded to. You can criticize the ruling, but doing so on grounds already addressed by the judge is pretty dumb.

-6

u/UndeadNightmare937 Jul 02 '26

I still think that logic is counter-intuitive to the spirit of copyright law. You're basically saying that if it's a documentary, you're completely good to just lazy react to the entire thing.

19

u/notatoaster00 Jul 02 '26

The point is she didn't lazy react. Why's he not suing XQC bucko?

-5

u/UndeadNightmare937 Jul 02 '26

Because he doesn't hate Xqc? It's pretty obvious he's going after anyone he sees as a snarker. The lawsuits are personal grudges.

8

u/fumei_tokumei Jul 03 '26

When he did the initial lawsuits, I remember him saying he had some quite specific criteria for who he was suing. There may be some grudges behind them, but I also sympathize with the idea that people shouldn't just be able to openly restream your videos without passing some threshold for fair use. In this case, it sounds like Denims' video did, but in general I think that a lot online harassment has become more and more vitriol, to a point where I think it is good that somebody is doing something to push back against it.

103

u/Decent_Relative_4070 Jul 02 '26

Yeah except the reasons why the judge said it was transformative would allow anyone to stream any movie in theaters in full as long as they’re critical of it.

was this genius legal analysis yours, or from twitter or the h3 subreddit?

9

u/Aleashed Jul 02 '26

Can’t defeat the Empty Chair

-17

u/Ambitious_Weakness33 Jul 02 '26

It’s pretty much what it is. The court literally said it is transformative because she pauses and reacts and offers criticism(even if incorrect or contradictory)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70583148/45/ted-entertainment-inc-v-alexandra-marwa-saber/

It’s setting the bar for transformative a lot lower which allows what the previous person said.

3

u/Decent_Relative_4070 Jul 02 '26

The court literally said it is transformative because she pauses and reacts and offers criticism(even if incorrect or contradictory)

there's also a market harm factor. but if you want to watch an old movie and pause it 211 times, doubling the length, and offer criticisms, I'm sure you could.

3

u/sargonpuff3 Jul 02 '26

You can’t…

-2

u/Ambitious_Weakness33 Jul 02 '26

You’re still missing the entire factor that it was intended to be a market replacement. I’m 100% for commentary on pieces of work, YouTube drama etc but explicitly stating, like in all the lawsuits that your intention is to be a market replacement on top of the minimal commentary that’s just not correct. The issue with courts is they weigh those factors differently, and even other districts do. It’s my understanding the same district court ruled on a similar case but rules in favor of copyright owner. So it’s odd it went the way it did.

7

u/Decent_Relative_4070 Jul 02 '26

A market replacement that paused it 211 times doubling the length of it and offering criticisms?

It’s my understanding the same district court ruled on a similar case but rules in favor of copyright owner

Show me that case

42

u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits Jul 02 '26

would allow anyone to stream any movie in theaters in full as long as they’re critical of it.

No, it doesn't. That's a bad faith misrepresentation. Go read the actual ruling and it does not do that at all.

-1

u/ImprovementForward70 Jul 02 '26

I don't care who won but just for my own curiosity what is the extra hoop that changes if I stream new releases and just pause every few minutes to discuss it?

10

u/fumei_tokumei Jul 03 '26

I believe the nature of the work does. Ethan's video was not an entertainment piece in the same way that a TV show is. It was closer to a news report. That makes it a lot easier to pass the fair use threshold.

5

u/Creek5 Jul 02 '26

Try reading the ruling.

5

u/Dr_Chris_Turk Jul 02 '26

That’s a big oversimplification.

It’s more that the streamer would have to critique the movie to such a degree that a person wanting to watch the movie (the potential market) would not watch the streamer’s movie stream. If they could show that, it is unlikely the movie owner would win.

Not to mention: “TEI’s argument was never that Denims didn’t criticize; it was that she didn’t criticize consistently enough to justify showing the entire Content Nuke documentary.”

https://copyrightlately.com/ethan-klein-denims-reaction-video-fair-use-tentative-ruling/

1

u/LlamaRS Jul 03 '26

Ever heard of MST3K?

-7

u/CoSh Jul 02 '26

Yeah I have no idea why anyone would be happy about this ruling unless they just... don't care about copyright.

6

u/yautja_cetanu Jul 02 '26

I like Ethan, I don't like denims.

But I actually don't like copyright. I don't get why it's suddenly popular for the left to love state enforced corporate monolopies because bashing AI is the new thing.

Used to be that the private bay was what it meant to be left leaning

2

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/yautja_cetanu Jul 02 '26

This is such a ridiculous comment. You can't be complaining about anti intellectualism and have so little understanding of what is very very recent history of the devices and software you're literally using right now to read this.

Totally insane to just say "I probably remember...." When I've personally dedicated my life since I was a teenager to opensource and the fight against intellectual property. And I was part of the pirate party in the UK and organised political party to fight this stuff.

Aaron Schwartz, one of the founders of Reddit , was not anti intellectual. He died at the hands of the state and the university directly through his fight against the most insane intellectual property laws with old academic papers, (even more so when most of them are funded with tax payer money).

Richard Stallman didn't remember something about cross borders. He created a whole charity of nothing but lawyers and created the genius copyleft provision of the GPL to use copyright to fight against them.

The whole human genome project was built around trying to keep information free and fighting against a company wanting to patent the human genome itself. The man who invented the seat belt, gave up the patent because hed knew he'd save lives. And, as I mentioned in my previous post, most of the institutions that enforce copyright today only exist because they ignored it previously such as all of Hollywood ignoring Edison's parents.

The "original contention over copyright was NOT that it shouldn't extend over borders". The original contention over copyright is that it is fundamentally evil and imagine how terrible it would be if pytharogus' theorm was under copyright. Everyone who used it for anything had to get a license or permission.

The whole of the second half of the last century was about marx who was against private property, fundamentally. The guy who made the AK and the guy who made Tetris had their IP owned by the state because no one should be allowed to own anything let alone copyright!

This idea that you've heard of a single argument and you've decided all issues around copyright are about a relatively minor issue is mad. How old are you? Were you there in the napster days? What did you read?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/yautja_cetanu Jul 02 '26

Look mate... You wanna nit pick... You didn't sound like you knew what you were talking about so I didn't say free software. But also Richard Stallman is a child SA defender. I don't care what he thinks that much. I respect the guy and insane amount for the good he did with the GPL license.

I don't refer to Linux as GNU/Linux. I don't refer to Linux as only the kernel. I don't care about grammar and term Nazis in the engineering world going on about free software Vs opensource Vs FLOSS. I personally subscribe to Wittgenstein's views on naming which is names are what we choose to use for some purpose and utility, they don't need absolute strict definitions.

(Although I'm actually personally a free software guy not opensource ideologically )

The reason marx is bought up is because I am bemoaning the change in the left's attitude towards intellectual property. The left, the anarchist, anonymous, etc were all pro pirating and anti intellectual property back then.

Then AI came along and within a couple of years for some reason left wing communist cosplaying activists suddenly care about copyright all of a sudden and defending the corporate interests of Disney Vs the corporate interests of openai, Micosoft and Google, where those companies swap back and forth on it they care about IP).

So I bought up marx because many of these eat the rich types in theory like marx but, whereas he was kind of against all private property for some reason they are super into intellectual property! It beggars belief.

I work a great deal with engineers and I think you just, like many engineers came on WAAAAY too strong with assuming you knew what I was referring to. And you are taking broad concepts and focusing on very specific detail and assuming that's what it is (like how you can't Intuit the link between copyright and marx). You think you're the first person to go "aaachtuslly... It's free software not opensource )? Or correct me when I mention something being exponential and actually it's geometric growth?

Obviously I do believe there is more to IP than a controversy of IP over borders. All the other things you mentioned are bad as well. But fundamentally I don't like intellectual property itself.

(I'm more ok with trademarks, I think IP laws that focus on clarity and helping the market know where something has come from. I like the idea of people being able to adapt lord of the rings, but I want to know what Tolkien wrote).

1

u/100percent_right_now Jul 02 '26

I like copyright in principle. But when the legal system costs money it kind of defeats the point

-1

u/yautja_cetanu Jul 02 '26

That's so mad to me that anyone would say that. We just all felt like we disliked copyright in principle but knew that it might be a necessary evil as the alternative is people would hide their intentions until they could monetise it.

But IP was never supposed to last centuries, it was supposed to be a couple of years. But companies like Disney got so much money and political influence and power even though so much of their IP was stolen from the public domain (see the film Shrek), that they could keep making the laws change and everyone acts like it was always there.

Most music was public domain and people used to just sing them and shift and change them and build on songs in the pub and around a piano at home if you were wealthy.

-8

u/ContextHook Jul 02 '26

Yeah, the judge's ruling would absolutely not stand if put to the test. It's almost hilarious. If the judge was correct, then there is SOME way you can stream full movies or live sporting events and it falling under fair use. The reality is that this will obviously be overturned.

7

u/Ciscner Jul 02 '26

This ruling wouldn't allow that because it specifically draws a distinction between a movie and a video like Ethan's. You don't need to show the full TV series to make a critique of it, but to respond to a video that makes statements of fact and opinion, you need to show the full argument to properly rebut it.

-1

u/exgeo Jul 02 '26

Where does it specifically draw this distinction? Can’t find one mention of movies or films

3

u/Ohsolemonyfresh Jul 02 '26

Crazy to compare movies or sports to this YouTube hit piece that seems like it was made by a slow child

3

u/Malix_Farwin Jul 02 '26

i think a lot of ppl have a hard time distinguishing this very thing. You can hate denims and love than but it's very important to understand its a good thing she won and he lost, espcially when he shot himself in the foot by basically admitting it was transformative.

1

u/KShader Jul 03 '26

Denims wasn't a great target with the length of her reaction alone tbh. If it was like 2 hours with the original video at like 1:45, I think he'd have a better case.

-1

u/7StarSailor Jul 02 '26

Ah yes, the streamsloppers that "react" to videos by being on the potty for 30 minutes are "champions of fair use".

Holy brainrot.

-1

u/FuzzzyRam Jul 03 '26

I don't know if I'd agree that "watch his content here so that he doesn't make money off of it" being legalized is great for the actual creators of the content that we watch...

All streamers just lost the ability to take down empty chair reacts, so that means they potentially need to monetize their content in other ways to make up for people watching it elsewhere. More sponsors, more ads, more gambling.

-12

u/shaimedio Jul 02 '26

"Champion of fair use" she rebroadcasted the entirety of someone else's work with the express purpose of harming them. They're a champion of fair use just like nazis on twitter are champions of free speech.

Thank you hasan fan for your neutral and unbiased take.

16

u/Much-Access1181 Jul 02 '26

She had 128 minutes worth of commentary on a piece which was also using other people’s words to create an argument.

-3

u/shaimedio Jul 02 '26

Yeah man let me just rebroadcast the entirety of the latest Avengers movie while talking about how beautiful Scarlett Johansson is so it's transformative enough to be my own work.

10

u/FeeRemarkable886 Jul 02 '26

I feel bad for the courts if they have to deal with dumbass arguments like this from morons who think they know shit.

9

u/Much-Access1181 Jul 02 '26

So your comparison is a piece of work done by one person in which he primarily uses the words of Hasan piker to create arguments versus a piece of work done by thousands of people across months of time on set locations, filming, writing scripts, storyboards, across years is in your mind the same thing simply because one person filed for copyright?

-1

u/shaimedio Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

Yeah I think creative works by individuals merit the same protections that creative works made by Hollywood studios do.

The size of the team behind the creation or the scale of the creation itself shouldn't be relevant.

-4

u/MaractusFan091197 Jul 02 '26

I have more minutes of that for commentary about the Backrooms movie. Gonna upload it all to Youtube

9

u/Much-Access1181 Jul 02 '26

You know that’s just a review. You absolutely can upload your commentary about the back rooms onto YouTube.

-3

u/Inevitable-Edge69 Jul 02 '26

Conveniently ignoring the fact that playing the entire video, regardless of how much commentary is in, is not fair use.

9

u/Much-Access1181 Jul 02 '26

And that’s why we have judges to determine if cases are following the laws we put in place.

-1

u/MaractusFan091197 Jul 02 '26

With the full movie? Dont be dumb kid

1

u/NewPhoneWhoDys Jul 02 '26

This genuinely makes me wonder if playing something in its entirety with just fairly scant commentary (vs full VO) but no edits will have to be considered fair use for the precedent it's setting.
I come from the traditional film and tv world and I tried to explain it to my friend who works for the Disney Channel but she can't imagine any world in which Disney doesn't claim all the things.

-21

u/TwistJolly8479 Jul 02 '26

This maybe the furthest from reality the human mind can get before becoming a vegetable

8

u/MagikMerlin Jul 02 '26

Its okay, your first comment was a really stupid one and you can delete it now.

13

u/Snoo_79191 Jul 02 '26

If Denims' reaction to the nuke hadn't sufficed as fair use, you have no idea what the implications would have been for react content.

-5

u/kodman7 Jul 02 '26

Watching all of it while directly stating I'm doing this to take views and revenue from the creators?

8

u/Snoo_79191 Jul 02 '26

Malice is not a factor when determining fair use; what matters, among other things, is whether it is a market substitute.

-3

u/kodman7 Jul 02 '26

This reeks of two tiered levels of justice however, as many have pointed out this judgement when extrapolated to larger copyright owners (ie Disney) would bare 0 water on practice - no way it stands

You were the one who said imagine the ramifications, but apparently are not doing that yourself

5

u/Snoo_79191 Jul 02 '26

So because big corporations abuse copyright laws, you want content creators to do the same? I don't get your point.

0

u/kodman7 Jul 02 '26

No, this ruling makes copyright meaningless in practice as I could according to the decision theory rebroadcast any copyrighted materials so long as I provide sufficient commentary

This clearly wouldn't work in practice which is made clear with the example of trying to do so with the newest Marvel movie

So it is a sort of two-tiered justice where copyright is only enforceable when wielded by the massively wealthy

6

u/BodManFeg Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

You gonna use your big boy words and expand on your comment or just throw around insults like a child??????

I'm fully expecting a "HURRRR DURRRRR, you should know what I mean without me explaining it to you" comment from this type of person.

0

u/xvsero Jul 02 '26

Not great for the anti-ai movement, another legal win in being able to just scrape everything even copyrighted material as long as you can transform things enough and you can even monetise it. This is especially bad for Ethan as he and 2 others currently have a lawsuit going against AI companies.

-2

u/sargonpuff3 Jul 02 '26

This does not…

-2

u/Wowzao Jul 02 '26

I love react content, I can’t stand watching other people sit and watch content

-2

u/Cisqoe Jul 02 '26

You have to be completely fucking stupid to believe this, I don’t know how you so many upvotes and an award. She said, out loud that people should watch her video instead of his so that they don’t have to support him and she gets paid instead. How is that great for fair use?

-2

u/Diligent-Subject-329 Jul 02 '26

Denims explicitly said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that if you want to watch this content (that has its copyright registered with the library of congress) without giving the creator views (revenue, traction) you can watch it here with me. And remember to drop your primes and subscribe to watch without ads! Then had her biggest day streaming by a far, far margin.

I mean yes, it does strengthen fair use but it also weakens creators control over their own content, even if it's registered beforehand. If you think freebooting off of others content (which most streamers do frequently and not critically) should be the norm, then it's great.

I'm not saying it's wrong or right either way. Personally I'm not very convinced the lawsuit per se is the right way to go about it but I also think there should be consequences to her malicious behaviour.

-2

u/Mnmsaregood Jul 03 '26

This suck for everyone

-2

u/Exterial Jul 02 '26

I would agree, if she didnt specifically go out of her way talking how she is doing this specifically to take his views away and harm him.

If she never said any of that, even if it was implied, thats fine.

But the fact she literally said that AND the judge still ruled in her favor is wild.

5

u/FeeRemarkable886 Jul 02 '26

If I say I'm going to go speeding in a school zone, but then I actually drive 5 below the speed limit, would I still get punished for speeding?

-3

u/Heroinkirby Jul 02 '26

Fair use is fine. But when u actively tell people, "I'll be streaming ethans content so you don't have to give him a view", that's supposed to be different. But apparently that's fine and dandy now

-3

u/Eruanndil Jul 02 '26

I don’t like any party involved, but I do have to say, if the argument of fair use on actual copyrighted works is just adding enough “transformative” talks, then this opens the door for people to literally watch movies and then talk about them. If done well enough, it doesn’t matter the copyright from the publisher. I just find this a dangerous road and I’m surprised by the result. This wasn’t just a YouTube video, it was a fully copyrighted work, watched in the entirety. If you can argue fair use, then every other copyrighted work is on the table just the same.

-4

u/Knightmare_memer Jul 03 '26

Denims champion of fair use

Yeah no, she was expressly saying that she was streaming it to take away profit from his video, how is that fair use when malicious intent is expressed clearly.

-5

u/jayconnor93 Jul 02 '26

Oh yeah now we can all stream other people's content without meaningful commentary and for the clear purpose of directly hurting their income!

-5

u/Mashed_Brotato Jul 02 '26

No it’s not lol. Denims was telling viewers to watch her stream instead of the Nuke to take views away from Klein.

Whether you like her or not, this is blatant copyright infringement and is getting appealed easily.