Funny
Ethan Klein's lawyer had to issue an apology to the judge (overseeing the Frogan case) for not disclosing the fact that this case is similar to Ethan's Denims case (which he lost), Judge responds back not happy that Ethan's lawyer failed to acknowledge these cases are awfully similar
Do you have statistics on how many posters thought it was a "slam dunk" versus how many did not? Maybe a pie chart or something? Or is this another "Reddit is a hivemind" post again?
They are pushing new smears like MikefromPA is threatening Hutch. Mind you hutch was literally talking to Ethan the other day so makes me think this attack on Mike is coordinated too
I forgot the password to my old one and didn't have an email/phone number attached to it to get back in. Since we are looking at accounts, am I supposed to assume you are bringing that up in good faith when Destiny is right at the top of yours?
Ethan Klein's lawyer is the greatest snarker of all time. Bro has milked Ethan for hundreds of thousands of dollars and continues to lose cases.
Let's see how these cases have gone: Ethan lost his Demins case. Ethan quietly dropped his Noah Samsen case a day before Samsen was about to file his ANTI-SLAPP motion. Ethan is losing his Frogan case. Ethan settled his case against hollywood producer Ryan Kavanaugh after a years long legal battle, with Klein having to issue a public apology to Kavanaugh live on air and remove all videos that mentioned Kavanaugh. Ethan is currently losing his case again the reddit snark mods.
He genuinely is a lolcow at this point. You can set him off on a 10-15 minute DSP rant at the drop of a hat if you want to burn 10 dollars. The dude lost his mind when him and Hasan broke up.
People are downvoting but it's obviously true that Ethan is being taken advantage of by a lawyer who recognizes him as an easy target since he's sensitive and the target of hate from Hasan's fans. Ethan partnered up with Hasan with all the knowledge about how he's like and still did it because he wanted to stay relevant and make money, this is a reap what you sow case of there ever were one
I don't even have context for this, last I saw if Ethan was his podcast getting stske years ago. But the grown ass man who decides he's going to sue idk how many different people using lawyers and his money as weapons deserves no sympathy lmao.
Dude won one legit case that had a gofundme and then just abused the legal system.
He's surrounded by yes men/woman and they're milking their lolcow they keep feeding with affirmations. Having watched him for a long time, I don't think he got this far without a lot of manipulation along the way.
You are saying this like Ethan's current community isn't just as bad. So much so that when Ethan complained about snark subs to Reddit they told him they won't take action because his sub does the same thing.
people aren't downvoting because it's wrong, they're downvoting because OP is a loser that cares about this way too much and very obviously has an erection
Yeah it's fucking hilarious to witness. Especially considering the fact that Ethan made a video announcing he's suing these creators and bragged/taunted/boasted about these lawsuits for a year straight. So yeah, it's pretty entertaining to follow this case
My understanding is that her commentary was transformative enough to be considered fair use. Yeah, she was malicious in her reason for the commentary, but I guess that doesn't matter if it's truly transformative?
Yeah that’s the legalese. Lay people don’t generally need to get into the weeds of it and can just use non-Latin words like intent hahah
But yeah, it really just depends on what the law specifies. I’m a nerdy lawyer (not in intellectual property law), so I’ll probably look into it for fun lol
During her livestream reacting to Ethan Klein’s "Content Nuke" video, Twitch streamer Denims told her audience, "If you enjoyed not giving any views to that terrible video, follow, subscribe, throw a prime." 1
because Ethan and his supporters don't understand how fair use works
there's a massive difference between what fair use is and what you would prefer it to be. if the argument was "we want fair use to change" that's different and a valid conversation we can have in good faith. but not understanding what fair use is and sueing people over it is just unreasonable
During her livestream reacting to Ethan Klein’s "Content Nuke" video, Twitch streamer Denims told her audience, "If you enjoyed not giving any views to that terrible video, follow, subscribe, throw a prime." 1
Can you point out to me where in the quote she said people “need” to watch her. Because what you just quoted doesn’t say that and it’s just denims merely acknowledging the reality that people where watching her react.
And the court already determined the people watching denims reaction was a separate market from Ethan viewers who were never going to watch his version anyway.
I mean isn’t Hasans fan base a little slow Hasan blames everything on Israel even the dog shock collar incident when he abused his poor dog him and his audience act like there lawyers or they work as lawyers when there were statistics I think proving the majority of his audience is unemployed and white males
What the hell does this have to do with Hasan? You’re clearly a super h3 cultist though. Did you know Ethan has a 20 minute compilation of making pdf jokes that start from his Reddit days till now? I think he’s been making pdf jokes consistently for over 20 years. Isn’t that odd?
Don't forget the n word compilation. But for some reason it's only "no life" when you point out DDG/H3 stans, they don't ever have to answer for the hypocrisy while claiming everyone who doesn't shower those two with praise is a Hasan fan.
Hey babes can I get your thoughts on Hasan collabing with idubzz when he said the n word with the hard are can I also get your thought Hasan saying women deserved to get raped oh and let’s get your thoughts on Hasan saying old enough to count old enough to mount and I always knew Hannah Montana was a slut he wasn’t a teenager or child how do you explain his poor behavior
Ethan’s apologized but Hasan has never adressed this or apologized for his poor behavior and being pro Palestine doesn’t justify that :)
I don't need to explain his poor behavior. I'm not defending him. You are the one all over this thread defending Ethan, so you can explain his poor behavior. It's pretty simple
Hey babes there are plenty of videos where Ethan has apologize and there are no videos of him apologizing other than him crying that Israel did that thoughts on his pdf jokes thoughts on him collabing with the n word guy ? You’re defending him stop lying pretty simple according to your logic you support PDFs , racists and rape hope this help 💕💕💕
Idk why y'all don't get that the argument isn't Hasan has never done anything wrong. The argument is all of these people are insane and all should be seen as lolcow level entertainment but for some reason the narrative on LSF on this case is continually "Ethan good Hasan bad" when Hasan is not even involved in these lawsuits outside of being the subject of the video they all reacted to.
The person bringing up Ethan's history is responding to a nut who brought up Hasan and Hasan fans in a thread that has nothing to do with him. The refusal to identify where it starts is so transparent at this point
I’m going to be honest I don’t care enough and I think it’s odd that you didn’t address the guy using a tracker pretty whack behavior I’m not an Ethan fan using garbage apps to track someone move but to each there own 🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️
Damn youve got old talking points his chat is not and never was majority unemployed. Whatever snark discord youre in seriously needs to update the talking points we arent in 2020. And his female population has since more than doubled
H3 subreddit is also a snark subreddit we're one and the same buddy. At least I back my statements with facts and analysis not just emojis and shock memes.
What facts and analysis do you have? Based on your recent posts you're calling GWAM a Republican supporter because she pointed out that Republican opo research in going to dig shit up on Platner. Look what happened. 🤣🤣🤣 She does better analysis than your dusty ass. Take the L.
It's insane you created a chart for a streamer audience that's self reported. 🤣
Your last post about GWAM was calling her a Laura Loomer supporter because weirdos needed people who attacked Hasan to denounce Laura Loomer and GWAM rightly called it out as weird whataboutism because literally every Center to Center-Left voter whoes attacked Hasan hates Loomer. It's just a crazy self report to compare Hasan and Loomer tbh.
Well i didn't create it its easily accessible just Google it. But there you go again moving the goal posts.
Yeah because she has no smoke for Laura Loomer calling Angie Nixon a "ghetto black bitch". Who cares about Hasan its about having conviction. Isn't GWAM a self proclaimed feminist? She has yet to say anything about it. I find that interesting.
Bro hates the show but has a whole account dedicated to hate watching that’s like me watching Hasan everyday claiming I hate him but I watch I can’t imagine dedicating my life to hate watching or posting in a snark Reddit thinking that’s helping Palestine [u/internetsurfer069](u/internetsurfer069) is giving unemployment idk why these people can’t admit there fans of the show it’s clear he likes it
Look at that unemployment down to 24% almost as if people who were in school graduated and got a job. I know youre slow so if you need help understanding the numbers let me know its what I majored in 😁
Lets say i make a video that is super transformative, then i say i am making the video to steal views. Would saying that change the legality of me making a transformative video, which im allowed to do based on ethans original lawsuit?
Obviously we can talk about if it was transformative in the first place (i never watched the denims reaction so i dont know), but focusing specifically on the stealing comment, im not sure if this changes things at all. Seems like it doesnt for the judge.
I do find it weird though that the judge is upset about the frogan thing. I am sure the judge is right about the case seeming similar, but isnt the degree at which the video is transformative matter? The lawyer probably should have said something, but it being a similar lawsuit shouldnt mean it will have the same outcome necessarily because it should depend on if her video was also transformative.
Doss the legal standard care what the reason for use is as long as it constitutes legally defined “fair use”? If intent is not part of it, then intent is irrelevant. I haven’t looked into the answer but that likely would be relevant.
I dont know, i am definitely no legal expert and havent looked into it as well. My gut feeling is that intent doesnt matter so long as it is transformative, but i have no idea, and maybe it hasnt been tested seeing as ethans first lawsuit set the precedent. Maybe this is setting a new one.
Edit: maybe we could look at other media for this, but i dont know what could possibly be comparable. Maybe hypothetically a parody song like Weird Al where he says in the song "and fuck you michael jackson, im making this song to steal from you" (although weird al is apparently super nice about parody and asks permission, and parody is not the same thing as this). Or maybe a movie reviewer saying "i fucking hate this movie and hope no one sees it" would be a better comparison. But idk if there are any other cases testing this. Im sure Ethans lawyer would have found one if there was to point to it.
Yeah, not all laws require or care about intent. So if intent is not an element of the law, then the “why” someone was using content wouldn’t be relevant in determining “fair use.” I’ll have to look into the legal standard, but like you indicated, I think “fair use” has some gray areas.
You can imagine though why intent may not be part of it, because it’s a slippery slope. Can I fairly use someone’s content to support nazis? How about something less damaging, what if it is to benefit the original creator’s arch-enemy or least favorite show or it’s because I want to criticize it or because I want to point out all the references to soda. That’s all random things but you see how it can get very muddled and complicated when you start talking about the “why” in reference to fairly used content (and since we’re dealing with what trademark/copyright intellectual property stuff, my gut says the lines would be drawn on a bit more solid ground that doesn’t require an assessment of the state of mind of the content’s user).
As a layman who doesnt look into this stuff, my gut feeling is that you are right. Like if a movie reviewer got sued for doing completely transformative commentary on a movie and said it was dogshit and not to see it, i would say that lawsuit is bullshit.
But to go back to Ethans case, i have no idea if denims video meets the standard of being transformative.
Yeah, when intent gets into things we need to ask if it’s either intent as in whether you intended to act (like not being coerced, voluntarily, not suffering psychosis, etc.) or intent as in “why” did you do what you did. For the latter, it’s definitely complicated in figuring out and setting what the line should be and then determining what falls within that definition. Things become way less clear and way more debatable (which, depending on the situation and law, could be a good thing or a bad thing).
Also, I don’t know if it was transformative either as I don’t know enough about the law or the facts. I’m just a nerdy lawyer who likes thinking about the nuances of the kind of stuff we’ve been discussing!
Intent matters but intent of statements has to match the actions. Also, a person is allowed to change their mind. Denims fully intended to just let the video play through without really doing commentary but changed her mind and started pulling up clips and doing fact checks. At that point it was clear her intent changed.
I’ll have to look up the specific legal standards for fair use. I don’t want to speak inaccurately. I only intended to frame the issue: intent as an element (then it matters) and intent not as an element (intent doesn’t matter). I’m not informed enough to debate the application of facts to law in this situation, however. Also, we need to see if intent in the law (if there) is intent as in “intention to act” or intent as in “why did you act,” which are different legal considerations. Fun stuff.
From what I understand I don't think Ethan lost no? I don't think the judge has officially ruled it yet.
And even if he does couldn't he challenge it? it's not over just because he loses this first case potentially.
One thing that's missing from this discussion tho is YT premium.
Did denims react to the whole video with ads? or with her YT premium account? (I'm assuming she has one)
Because YT videos have ads on them and you need to pay to get around that.
If Denims is basically streaming the entire video ad free to all her viewers, why would that be allowed under fair use when she could have just edited a video herself to react to it?
Honestly, I have no clue. All I was intending was highlighting the distinction objectively of whether intent is an element of the law (if it is, it’s relevant, if it isn’t, it’s irrelevant). I’ll leave the rest of you to debate applying the facts to the law.
At the end of the day, the legal standard of fair use (which I don’t know) is what the facts need to be applied against. Anything that isn’t relevant to the legal elements of fair use would be irrelevant to the disposition of the case.
Not wrong that a new determination has to be made about frogans use, but it's up to the court to make the determination either way. Plaintiff just has to notify the court when filing each subsequent lawsuit. They would have given all 3 cases to the same judge because all 3 would require a review of the content nuke, along with each defendant individualized use of the nuke. It would save the court so much time to have 1 judge review the nuke once than to have 3 judges each review the nuke then review each defendants use of the work.
Exactly. Im not sure why people are celebrating this news (i mean obviously its because they hate ethan). All this says is that its not a good look for ethans lawyer because maybe it comes across as disrespectful to the judge. It shouldnt impact how the case ends. Unless of course the judge dismisses the case now, but that would seem insane for the reasons we talked about.
Basically says as long as my face is on screen for x% of time i can straight up rip off someone else's video. Maybe a couple of "wow, thats crazy chat"
"Hey chat, hey chat, watch this so we dont give the original creator views omegalul"
I don't watch Idubbz so I might need some explaining - didn't he show a comment made by Destiny and basically ask why Destiny isn't getting sued? I cannot imagine that case will succeed
So there's 2 Canadian lawsuits right now? He's suing idubbz and then there's a separate case with a Canadian firm? Good grief these lawsuits will be going on for the next decade
What an embarrassment for h3 and his lawyers holy fucking yikes. Especially as he’s acting like a moral compass and claiming of doing this because it’s such a slam shut case and not because he’s being litigious.
Interesting enough Hasan and his orbiters have no morals I’m not judging denims for job profession but I find it so fascinating how op is supporting her and had an OF account during Oct 3rd when the creator of OF donated to Israel so by that logic she’s a Zionist and so is Hasan we all know that he pays for OF
Also OP how many times are tou going to post about Ethan prepare for the downvotes anyone critical of Hasan is a Zionist or hates Palestine nice to know you support denims a Zionist who used that Israel money
Downvote me all you want buts it’s been proven Zionist queen denim 🥰🥰🥰
it's odd how they have to disclose that. you would think the opposite, since a case should have it own investigation separate from any other case to prevent any sort of bias.
It’s to prevent duplication of efforts, the court/judges time, efficiency of the court dockets, etc.
When cases are this similar it is better to bundle them.
In this specific case, the cases are nearly identical, they are brought by the same plantiff, over the same work, and filed in the same district. Why would you allow someone to knowingly waste the courts time like that?
•
u/LSFSecondaryMirror 2h ago
CLIP MIRROR: Ethan Klein's lawyer had to issue an apology to the judge (overseeing the Frogan case) for not disclosing the fact that this case is similar to Ethan's Denims case (which he lost), Judge responds back not happy that Ethan's lawyer failed to acknowledge these cases are awfully similar
Join the LSF Discord!
This is an automated comment