Ah, I see, and in that light, I agree. I appreciate your explaining. (Side and largely off topic note, people in general seem reluctant to spell it out when someone asks)
In the breakdown of what’s going on in the case from your favourite copyright attorney (I’m not sure if he says it in that video but that’s just the most recent update.) The $50,000 bill had to do with a situation where the h3h3 crew switched attorneys in the middle of the legal procedure and the new firm had to acquaint themselves with the case in a hurry, AND file documents with a deadline extremely quickly. At the average rate of a copyright attorney ($200-$300 /hr) plus the fact that they likely had more than one attorney on this case for a few weeks led to an exceedingly high first month and that it’s unlikely every bill will look that way.
That said the case itself is fascinating. They’re being pretty tight lipped about why they decided to change attorneys but the fact that they did basically led to the following happening:
The guy suing them asked for some pretty blatantly unreasonable stuff during discovery (The amount they earn on every video they’ve ever put out, how much they filed in taxes for 2016, their bank accounts, etc). They have to respond according to the rules of the particular judge they’re dealing with (it goes judges rules > that particular courts’ rules > states rules ) and their judge (Judge Forrest) has a 3 day deadline.
Because of the aforementioned change in counsel they missed this deadline meaning whatever the guy asked for is automatically granted.
Their new attorneys had to learn all this and ask for a mulligan and submit their own discovery request in a very short time hence the bill. (sorry if I’m rambling, I eat this stuff up)
[quote=“Naoza, post:62, topic:562”]
In the breakdown of what’s going on in the case
[/quote]Ohhhhhh, that explains it a bit better. I wasn’t aware of all that.
[quote=“Naoza, post:62, topic:562”]
sorry if I’m rambling,
[/quote]As long as you use paragraphs, I’m the last person who is going to yell at you about making long posts.
1 Like
Ya don’t think I rely too heavily on parenthesis?
Can WSJ sue Ethan for these accusations? They did release a statement sticking to their original news story. Ethan created a witch hunt against these journalists and there’s a lot of evidence on Reddit like other snafus they’ve had before.
[quote=“Naoza, post:64, topic:562, full:true”]
Ya don’t think I rely too heavily on parenthesis?
[/quote]Hey, it’s your style. There’s no Geeknights forum style guide that says otherwise.
[quote=“Nukerjsr, post:65, topic:562, full:true”]
Can WSJ sue Ethan for these accusations? They did release a statement sticking to their original news story. Ethan created a witch hunt against these journalists and there’s a lot of evidence on Reddit like other snafus they’ve had before.
[/quote]Yes, but it’s unlikely. While he’s higher profile than your average green ink brigader, it’s hardly the first time someone’s made big accusations against the media, with dubious evidence or no evidence to back it up. I wouldn’t be surprised if they simply considered him not even worth the attempt.
IANAL (I fucking love that acronym) but I believe the WSJ would have to prove damages to them. Since they make their money off a subscription model they’d have to show a drop off there or a drop off of ad revenue if they use that model.
The whole area of lost revenue on the internet has extremely low amounts of precedent and law surrounding it. The parties involved just have to ask for whatever number they ask for, explain their reasoning and hope a judge agrees. Once there is precedent there’d be a better answer.
This is partially why I’m really glad that this case is actually moving, answers to questions like, “how much money am I entitled to if I sue and win for copyright infringement or defamation on the internet?” could potentially have better defined answers. The more time the precedent is upheld the more confident my answers become.
[quote=“Churba, post:66, topic:562”]
There’s no Geeknights forum style guide that says otherwise.
[/quote] There is only Churba politely requesting you use paragraphs, an exceedingly reasonable request.
I watched one H3h3 video, thought it was way too long to get to the point, and way too self congratulatory when it reached the point, but was entertaining enough to get to the point. Then I watched about 30 seconds of another video, concluded he was probably some kind of dickhead, and never looked back. It’s very easy not to keep consuming videos that are only designed to make people angry.
I had ignored h3h3 mostly because I thought he was one of them bad youtube drama channels and it seems like I was right in that assumption even if he was subjected to an lawsuit.
Lol the Daily Mail is trying to frame Jorge Sprave of the Slingshot Channel as some violent person encouraging terrorism. Google blood money: Web giant cashes in on vile seven-minute video showing ‘knife expert’ penetrating a stab vest like the one worn by murdered Westminster PC. The dude is a goddamn teddy bear and even in their article he states that he just wanted to show that the aren’t actually stabproof, just resistant, and that maybe their police should get better vests.
[quote=“lukeburrage, post:68, topic:562”]
Then I watched about 30 seconds of another video, concluded he was probably some kind of dickhead, and never looked back.
[/quote]Similar experience. When a channel is nothing BUT that, as opposed to occasionally and pointedly, I don’t even click “dislike.” I just walk away.[quote=“lukeburrage, post:68, topic:562”]
It’s very easy not to keep consuming videos that are only designed to make people angry.
[/quote]There seemed to be a rapid rise for a small number of people whose primary “humor” was the angry diatribe style many years ago. I wonder if a lot of them were emulating Lewis Black.
But, just like the people who “emulate” South Park and end up just being racist dicks, they invariably end up either just being angrysad, or execute it poorly to the point that their audience consists of actually angry people. The resulting positive feedback pushes them angrier and shittier, their fans emulate them in their own creations, and everyone together circles the toilet.
1 Like
I guess we can repurpose this thread for professional internat assclowns in general. Here is Stefan Molyneux hissing over the audacity of a soup manufacturer putting female superheroes on their cans, and gets subsequently owned by the twitter comments (to my surprise).
So I initially read that as Peter Molyneux and was about to be really disappointed in The Elder Scrolls, but now I just wanna know why I should care who Stefan Molyneux is?
1 Like
A self described “philosopher” who basically admitted to being aligned with white nationalism, and is such an asshole antifeminist even the normal antifeminist crowd likes to make fun of him. Just ignore him.
“Why did they remove the visible panties from these underage girls in this anime game” Channel has uploaded a video of Jon’s cut lines from Yooka Laylee.
Why do people have such shitty definitions of “censorship”?
1 Like
So we talked about the hidden alt-right kinda scumbags on Youtube who happen to talk about video games or Youtube drama. The newest channel put under a microscope by the world is called “DaddyOFive” that’s explicitly content of two parents abusing (physically and psychologically) their children/stepchildren and labeling them as “prank” or “reaction” videos.
Pure Fucking Scum.
2 Likes
Okay, so this could get complicated. First, what do you mean by that?
Do you mean people’s definition of “censorship” doesn’t match what you think it should mean? In which case, what do you think they think it means and what do you think it means?
OR
Do you mean that the common definition of censorship among people doesn’t match the dictionary definition/governmental definition?
Most of the time it’s people conflating government censorship with (for example) reddit censorship. Both can technically fit the definition (arguably), but there’s an obvious difference between a site self-regulating and an outside body determining what speech is acceptable. Yet people try to conflate the two to take people’s immediate distaste at government censorship and apply it to “censorship” by sites that choose not to host certain content. It’s similar to gamergators whining about free speech, except the gators aren’t even technically correct about their free speech being impinged.
This case is even dumber though, because a channel called “Censored Gaming” going on about a developer choosing to remove content from their own game. That’s so far from any definition of the word it’s not even funny.
2 Likes
If that’s the argument, then it’s easily countered with. “Is it censorship every time someone you’re talking to decides against calling you an idiot?”
1 Like