Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Privacy The Courts

Reddit Mods Sued By YouTuber Ethan Klein Fight Efforts To Unmask Them (404media.co) 104

Posted by BeauHD from the dangerous-precedents dept.
alternative_right shares a report from 404 Media: Critics of YouTuber Ethan Klein are pushing back on subpoenas that would reveal their identities as part of an ongoing legal fight between Klein and his detractors. Klein is a popular content creator whose YouTube channel has more than 2 million subscribers. He's also involved in a labyrinthine personal and legal beef with three other content creators and the moderators of a subreddit that criticizes his work. Klein filed a legal motion to compel Discord and Reddit to reveal the identities of those moderators, a move their lawyers say would put them in harm's way and stifle free speech on the internet forever.

[...] On July 31, a judge allowed Klein's lawyers to file a subpoena with Reddit and Discord that would reveal the identities of the people running r/h3snark and an associated Discord server. On September 22, lawyers for the defendants filed a motion to quash the subpoenas. "On its face, the Action is about copyright infringement," the latest filing said. "At its heart, however, the Action is about stifling criticism and seeking retribution by unmasking individuals for perceived reputational harms TEI [Klein's production company] attributes to [John Doe moderators] unrelated to TEI's intellectual property rights." [...]

The anonymity of places like Reddit and Discord grant a layer of protection to people seeking to critique power. This case could set a dangerous precedent, the lawyers believe. "If the court allows TEI's Subpoenas, it would enable TEI to impose a considerable price on Does' use of the vehicle of anonymous speech -- including public exposure, real risks of retaliation and actual harm, and the financial and other burdens of defending the Action," the filing said. The filing added: "Very few would-be commentators are prepared to bear costs of this magnitude. So, when word gets out that the price tag of criticizing Ethan is this high -- that speech will disappear. But that is precisely what Ethan Klein wants."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reddit Mods Sued By YouTuber Ethan Klein Fight Efforts To Unmask Them More

Reddit Mods Sued By YouTuber Ethan Klein Fight Efforts To Unmask Them

Comments Filter:

  • The Real Fight Here Isn’t About Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)

    by memory_register ( 6248354 ) on Monday September 29, 2025 @10:26PM (#65691842)
    This case isn’t really about Ethan Klein or even YouTube drama; it’s about whether powerful figures can weaponize the courts to strip anonymity from critics. Copyright is the pretext and silencing dissent is the goal.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by SirSpanksALot ( 7630868 )
      Meanwhile those same anonomous mods (from many many subreddits) silence dissent constantly within their fiefdoms. Honestly, turnabout if fair play - I hope those mods end up eating shit.

      • I completely agree that some of the mods on reddit need to be tar'ed and feathered, but there has to be a better way of getting this done besides using copyright as the driver. Reddit's model is flawed and allows extreme biases to drive moderator behavior. I've had multiple accounts banned with an admin claiming I was doing X but there was nothing in my post about that, they just saw what they wanted to see because of biases. Then when I appeal, it doesn't even get answered. Reddit is the cause of this beha

      • Re:The Real Fight Here Isn’t About Copyright (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2025 @08:17AM (#65692460)
        What they want is the freedom to post whatever bullshit they want, and that no one is allowed to do anything about it.We see this in so many cases, where someone posts something incendiary, and then bitch and moan when there is a reaction to it and consequences.

        Free speech in there USA is well defined:

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

        So it doesn't mean that you or I can defame someone or threaten to murder someone, or incite panic that is likely to result in injury. I recall some prominent far right celebrities that threatened a president, they were paid a visit. Not arrested in the end. Consequences.

        Or on the other side, in a curious twist - teachers who refused to use preferred pronouns in Virginia were fired. The schools were demanding compelled speech https://thehill.com/homenews/l... [thehill.com]. Fortunately, the courts decided that firing was not proper. At present, another case is ongoing, with a teacher fired for not using preferred pronouns https://www.wpr.org/news/wisco... [wpr.org]

        Kind of an Uno Reverso of forced speech that is now losing in the courts. But part of the same spectrum.

        • Or on the other side, in a curious twist - teachers who refused to use preferred pronouns in Virginia were fired. The schools were demanding compelled speech

          Compelled? This is simple.

          The ability to speak to your students would be a requirement for that job. If you couldn't address little Joshua because biblical names are offensive, then you are the problem. If you insist on calling him Tom after he's told you his name is Joshua but Josh is OK, you should update your resume.

          You all know this, and from that hypocrisy is where laws that strictly require legal names in schools come in. There's your scapegoat, it's not what the kid wants, it's what the paper says. I

          • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

            by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 )

            Or on the other side, in a curious twist - teachers who refused to use preferred pronouns in Virginia were fired. The schools were demanding compelled speech

            Compelled? This is simple.

            The ability to speak to your students would be a requirement for that job. If you couldn't address little Joshua because biblical names are offensive, then you are the problem.

            Except that few people have any problem with names. Even archenemy of the left, Jordan Peterson who took issue with Canada's attempt to make not using the person's preferred pronouns a crime, when asked how he would refer to a TQ+ person, he simply noted, "I would call them by their name."

            And that is exactly what I do. I call people by their names. I don't care if a man wears a dress, if a person prefers to have sex with others that have the same genitalia. I don't care if a person desires to amputate th

        • Making speech a requirement of your job is not compelled speech.

          That's utterly broken logic.
          If I walk into my Boss' office and call my boss a twat- once he's done laughing, I'm fired.

          You quoted it precisely:

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          Keep doing it until it clicks.

          • Making speech a requirement of your job is not compelled speech. That's utterly broken logic. If I walk into my Boss' office and call my boss a twat- once he's done laughing, I'm fired.

            You are not that dense to make a non sequitur like that, are you?

            If I go into my bosses office and call him a twat, (in seriousness) I damn well deserve to be fired. You. appear to be confused about the difference between civil discourse and demanding that I use only language you consider appropriate.

            You seriously want to say that some random person, can demand my words, lest I be fired - well then There is no point in arguing with a person who cannot understand what compelled speech is. So anyhow,

            • You are not that dense to make a non sequitur like that, are you?

              That's not a non sequitur.
              I think you perhaps need to read a bit on what that particular latin phrase means.

              If I go into my bosses office and call him a twat, (in seriousness) I damn well deserve to be fired.

              Correct.

              You. appear to be confused about the difference between civil discourse and demanding that I use only language you consider appropriate.

              Incorrect.
              Using the wrong pronoun can easily be seen as equivalent to calling someone a twat. A policy forcing you to use the correct pronoun is not materially different from a policy forcing you not to call people a twat.

              You seriously want to say that some random person, can demand my words, lest I be fired

              Random? Nothing random about it- we're talking about your employer.

              well then There is no point in arguing with a person who cannot understand what compelled speech is.

              lol- you're making it clearer and clearer that you don't have an actual argument, and are just pissed off

              • You are not that dense to make a non sequitur like that, are you?

                That's not a non sequitur. I think you perhaps need to read a bit on what that particular latin phrase means.

                I think perhaps you need the translation of the latin phrase. It translates as "it does not follow." Do you disagree?

                In modern usage it is an argumentative fallacy that it is a statement that does not follow logically from, or is not clearly related to anything previously said.

                You make a specious claim that somehow not calling a student zhe, or whatever they demand to be called is the exact same thing as going into your employers office and swearing at him (you also assumed the bosses gender - you shou

                • I think perhaps you need the translation of the latin phrase. It translates as "it does not follow." Do you disagree?

                  No disagreement whatsoever.

                  In modern usage it is an argumentative fallacy that it is a statement that does not follow logically from, or is not clearly related to anything previously said.

                  Also correct.

                  You make a specious claim that somehow not calling a student zhe, or whatever they demand to be called is the exact same thing as going into your employers office and swearing at him (you also assumed the bosses gender - you shouldn't do that) is the same thing.

                  I made no such claim.
                  Is your entire argument going to be predicated on that strawman?

                  I would even say if you are a teacher and you called a child a twat, it might be grounds for dismissal. Certainly rude level 1000.

                  Based on what? Natural law? Or workplace policy?
                  If workplace policy.... well, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

                  The two are not even the same thing.

                  Both are a workplace policy that regulates your speech.

                  Compelled speech refers to a situation where the government requires an individual or group to express a specific message or opinion, which they may not agree with. This concept is often associated with First Amendment rights, protecting individuals from being forced to speak against their beliefs.

                  Making speech a requirement of your job is not compelled speech.
                  You literally just demonstrated that.

                  You dipshits and your inconsistent theories on free speech.
                  An employer policy that says you have to

                  • You dipshits and your inconsistent theories on free speech.

                    sigh, I must be getting you pretty angry at this point. So now I'm not only less intelligent than 75 percent of the population, I'm as you put it, a dipshit. The 25th percentile is around an IQ of 85. Dipshit is a combination of Dippy and shit, probably originating in the 1960's. Anything else?

                    An employer policy that says you have to refer to students in a certain way? Violation of 1A.

                    So you agree that the teachers being fired for not using preferred pronouns had their first amendment rights violated.

                    A law that prohibits you from discussing homosexuality? (Don't say gay!)

                    No problemo.

                    Oh my dear Damn Oregonian, where on ea

      • Meanwhile those same anonomous mods (from many many subreddits) silence dissent constantly within their fiefdoms. Honestly, turnabout if fair play - I hope those mods end up eating shit.

        I'm sick of the hall monitors

    • Correct. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Monday September 29, 2025 @11:10PM (#65691906)

      I have no idea who Ethan Klein is but everything I've read and seen appears to indicate that he's attempting to use the US legal system to silence critics. I don't know what the criticism is about but he's trying to crush opposition of those who are known (other youtubers) and those who are anonymous (reddit moderators) via the US courts. I certainly hope it fails.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        I have no idea who Ethan Klein is but everything I've read and seen appears to indicate that he's attempting to use the US legal system to silence critics. I don't know what the criticism is about but he's trying to crush opposition of those who are known (other youtubers) and those who are anonymous (reddit moderators) via the US courts. I certainly hope it fails.

        This seems like a perfect opportunity to file a special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP laws, ideally followed by a SLAPP-back to drive the point home. (SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.) People who abuse the legal system like that need to be publicly spanked in court.

        • Good that there is a system in place. I was going to say, this seems a lot like a patent troll. You can't be popular without people discussing you - this is predictable. Using that against people, really seems like trollish behaviour.

          • So, let's say I start a "reaction" stream - I put some popular Disney movie on the screen, there is my face cam, but the vast majority of the time I am silent or am not even there (it's just my chair). The movie plays in its entirety, before my "reaction" and after it I say something like "Don't give Disney any money, you can watch the movie here".

            Do you think Disney would be justified in suing me for copyright infringement? If so, does copyright only apply to large companies like Disney or does it apply to

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              So, let's say I start a "reaction" stream - I put some popular Disney movie on the screen, there is my face cam, but the vast majority of the time I am silent or am not even there (it's just my chair). The movie plays in its entirety, before my "reaction" and after it I say something like "Don't give Disney any money, you can watch the movie here".

              Do you think Disney would be justified in suing me for copyright infringement? If so, does copyright only apply to large companies like Disney or does it apply to everyone?

              You'd probably have a hard time not getting your channel yanked. Not sure why he couldn't do the same thing. The thing is, even if they really are giving almost no useful criticism, he's probably still going after some kid who has no money anyway. And you're talking about content that was always free, so ignoring the minor impact on monetization, the amount of harm they're doing is also probably pretty small, assuming it is nonzero at all (since the people watching these streams are apparently watching o

              • The three streamers he's going after are not 14 year old, they are 28-34. The mods may be younger though.
                Klein had beef with those streamers before, so this lawsuit is just a way to get back at them. For example, the redditors or one of the three streamers called CPS on him and tried to get his children taken away. So yeah, this has been going on for a while.

                The "reactions" are likely not fair use because there was basically no commentary and the streamers actually said "watch my stream to not give him view

                • the redditors or one of the three streamers called CPS on him and tried to get his children taken away.

                  Wow, that's a super shitty thing to do.

                  the streamers actually said "watch my stream to not give him views",

                  If true then that is definitely going to bite them in the ass.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            Good that there is a system in place. I was going to say, this seems a lot like a patent troll. You can't be popular without people discussing you - this is predictable. Using that against people, really seems like trollish behaviour.

            The problem is SLAPP laws are state level only. Not all states have them (Texas, for example, doesn't, which is why Elon Musk did all sorts of legal maneuvering to keep his lawsuit there against various groups). It also doesn't have a federal counterpart, so when Elon Musk can'

      • Isn't criticism good for that line of work, since you *really* want to be talked about. If you silence criticism, you'll silence any talk related to you so you stop being relevant in the current narrative.

        Nobody will refer to your content whatsoever, for fear of being labelled a critic. Zero back links, it's really shooting oneself in the foot.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Gilmoure ( 18428 )

          Ah, the Oscar Wilde defense.

        • If you look at the lawsuit the behavior and why he is suing is about as narrow as you can get, since Ethan isn't stupid enough to file a broad lawsuit.

          • since Ethan isn't stupid enough to...

            Sounds like you have a dog in this fight. As a casual observer, I can assure you that all parties involved in this are stupid.

      • I have no idea who Ethan Klein is but everything I've read and seen appears to indicate that he's attempting to use the US legal system to silence critics..

        His "critics" basically streamed his entire video without any transformational content, so he sued them. That's about as cut and dry as you can get

        • "without any transformational content,"
          Many would disagree on that point but OK.

          • "without any transformational content," Many would disagree on that point but OK.

            Yes? That's the whole point of the judicial system to determine that. Ethan presents why he is suing them, the defendants present why that isn't the case, and the judge decides.

            When looking at the pillars of fair use, Denims and the Redditors pretty much failed the "purpose" and "effect" via their own words, acting as a market substitute for Ethan's original video when it was going live. Neither side can really argue on the "nature" aspect since it was mostly factual takes of Hasan with enough editing by Et

            • Yes? That's the whole point of the judicial system to determine that.

              This reaction does not comport to the previous assertion that it's "about as cut and dry as you can get".

              Given that you placed "critics" in quotes when referring to them, it would seem you have an obvious bias.

      • I am mostly in the same boat as you; however, I did 'hear' one twist to all of this that makes it more sensible, apparently, there is some sort of "stream sniping" going on. Not in the gamer sense, but in a monetary sense. Once money gets involved, the courts are a natural consequence.

        Personally, I would rather not hear any more about this nonsense. All parties appear to suck and I do not care about any of it.

    • "Critics" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Monday September 29, 2025 @11:16PM (#65691918)

      I'd agree with you 100% if these people were criticizing Klein. For the videos he is suing for, they were not. They were sniping his stream. Meaning, they were rebroadcasting his stream with no commentary or communication of any kind, so they would get the views instead of him. I've seen the videos of the people he is suing. They said, basically, "Here's his stream! This guy is an idiot." And that was the extent of the criticism. Some walked away from the camera and ate dinner while rebroadcasting his stream.

      The mods he is suing were organizing and promoting the snipe streams. They also didn't offer criticism beyond "Let's snipe Ethan he's a jerk."

      I don't like anybody involved here. I'm not a fan of Ethan Klein either. But the people who make nothing new and snipe content are bottom feeders and need to be kicked off the internet. I'm fine with criticism and commentary channels. The sniping, though, needs to stop.

      • This is accurate.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          So you're saying you don't know what a reaction video is, or what Ethan got famous doing...?

          The irony is palpable, but Ethan would prefer that you accept his version of why it's all so ironic.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by quonset ( 4839537 )

            So you're saying you don't know what a reaction video is, or what Ethan got famous doing...?

            The irony is palpable, but Ethan would prefer that you accept his version of why it's all so ironic.

            A reaction video? You mean where someone (or people) make wildly exaggerated fake reactions to anything and everything? Where they act is if they haven't been on this planet for 20 - 40 years and every event is a new experience to overly dramatize their reaction? The ones where coherency isn't even an afterthought, but instead a wild jumble of words strung together as if it's communicating something? That's what this is all about?

            • Yup, lol.
              Reaction videos- solid proof that we really are fucked as a species.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by shanen ( 462549 )

              Only Funny on the story? Seemed to be rich potential here, but nothing?

              The obvious low hanging fruit would have been something like "But Reddit deserves to die". Or maybe some deeper humor about legitimate versus illegitimate uses of anonymity.

              On deeper levels perhaps a joke about "This is not the anonymity you were looking for" or something about the abusers of power always devising viscous new tricks to get more power (andorxor money).

              Hmm... Now I think "andorxor" should be my new weird idea of the day. C

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by znrt ( 2424692 )

        that's not what stream sniping is, and besides stream sniping isn't illegal afaik.

        they are mocking him, that can be understood as a form of criticism. in any case, that's how the defense has decided to frame it. similarly, his layers decided to frame it as copyright violation. both points seem stretched, from tfa harassment would seem more appropriate but with fewer chances of getting the subpoena.

        if they're taking views away from him then that's probably a problem with his content. tfa says this guy has re

        • Re:"Critics" (Score:4, Interesting)

          by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2025 @12:57AM (#65692014)

          that's not what stream sniping is, and besides stream sniping isn't illegal afaik.

          Streaming someone else’s content with transformative elements is considered copyright infringement. Fair use would have been to add to it in any way like verbally criticizing Klein.

          they are mocking him, that can be understood as a form of criticism. in any case, that's how the defense has decided to frame it. similarly, his layers decided to frame it as copyright violation. both points seem stretched, from tfa harassment would seem more appropriate but with fewer chances of getting the subpoena.

          When they added zero to his stream, how is that "criticism"? Fair use requires some sort of transformation. If they screamed curse words at him the entire stream, that would be criticism.

          • Streaming someone else’s content with transformative elements is considered copyright infringement. Fair use would have been to add to it in any way like verbally criticizing Klein.

            Fair use has been debated for a long time. Rush Limbaugh used to impose a time limit on clips he would air on his radio/tv show. At one point it was 7 seconds, or maybe 10, but sometimes longer. Just recently, a judge decided Meta's use of zlib and libgen was "fair use" so why not this? Not enough lobbyists? Not enough political donations to curry favor? Just launder it through AI, if its made by AI its legally cleaned and free from wrongdoing because anything AI does is ok under fair use apparently.

            • Re:"Critics" (Score:4, Informative)

              by RedK ( 112790 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2025 @12:05PM (#65693056)

              Fair use is pretty cut and dry.

              It needs to be transformative. The length isn't the issue, it's the transformative bit that's important.

              See Hughes v. Benjamin. Benjamin took minutes of content from Hughes, but his "edit" was considered transformative, because he spliced her content in a way to expose how big of an hypocrite she was.

              She sued. She lost. She owed him attorney's fees. He smiled a lot that day.

              • It needs to be transformative. The length isn't the issue, it's the transformative bit that's important.

                No, the amount of material used is part of the four factors in determining Fair Use. [stanford.edu] Courts have normally ruled that using a small portion of copyrighted content like a movie generally favors Fair Use defenses. The factors are however not binary and all four factors must be considered. Sampling in music generally does not favor Fair Use due to the commercial nature of the use.

            • I'm pretty jaded today, so I see shit like this and instantly assume that you know better, and are just gaslighting people to push your stupid fucking narrative.

              In case that's wrong-
              Meta's use of zlib's copyrighted content to train its model is fair use. Why not this? Because training a model with content is just about the most transformative use there is. It would be hard to successfully argue it wasn't fair use.
              Meanwhile, rebroadcasting someone's stream is well, well within the range of "is this actua

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by UnknowingFool ( 672806 )

              Fair use has been debated for a long time. Rush Limbaugh used to impose a time limit on clips he would air on his radio/tv show. At one point it was 7 seconds, or maybe 10, but sometimes longer. Just recently, a judge decided Meta's use of zlib and libgen was "fair use" so why not this?

              One of the 4 factors in determining Fair Use is the amount of content used. In this case, Klein's "critics" streamed his whole content not a portion of it.

              Not enough lobbyists? Not enough political donations to curry favor? Just launder it through AI, if its made by AI its legally cleaned and free from wrongdoing because anything AI does is ok under fair use apparently.

              How about they streamed his entire content without adding to it? Why are you bringing up irrelevant topics like lobbyists? The question of whether AI can benefit from Fair Use has not been thoroughly settled; however using all of someone's content has been a factor against Fair Use claims.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by quall ( 1441799 )

          Going to bathroom or physically leaving the stream for extended periods while the copyrighted video continues to play on their stream is not a form of commentary. The video is kept playing specifically so that their viewers can continue to watch the copyrighted work.

          And when Denims tells her viewers to watch Ethan's video on her stream so that he does not get the views, I think it's pretty hard to argue that as a form of critique over the video. That's exactly what copyright infringement is meant to protect

          • you cannot possibly criticize a copyrighted work under fair use if you have not even watched it.

            You've never had an opinion form as someone says something? Conversation apparently can't exist according to you because you need time to think about what's said in order to form an opinion.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward

              You've never had an opinion form as someone says something?

              Um... you're claiming they had the opinion about what he said before he said it though...

              Conversation apparently can't exist according to you because you need time to think about what's said in order to form an opinion.

              But they aren't doing that. They are playing the stream and going away...

              And you think that's somehow criticising it ??

              Why do the stupidest people always think they know things?
              Oh, it's you. You always do this shit.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by quall ( 1441799 )

              Did you read the rest of that sentence? Seems you missed the part where I said "under fair use". You can wish really really hard, but it won't make it true. This is why watch party streams are almost never covered under the fair use doctrine, and never covered if it's for commercial use.

          • Streaming a video in real time is also different because you cannot possibly criticize a copyrighted work under fair use if you have not even watched it.

            Of course you can criticize it in realtime, unless you have no brain. Most of us have immediate reactions to media we consume.

            • Of course you can criticize it in realtime, unless you have no brain. Most of us have immediate reactions to media we consume.

              So I can rent a movie from some streaming service, play it on my own feed, make a couple of comments while it is playing, and I am good?

              • So I can rent a movie from some streaming service, play it on my own feed, make a couple of comments while it is playing, and I am good?

                That's not what I said. I was addressing a specific statement which was patently and obviously false. Don't try to move the goalposts like a clown.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by quall ( 1441799 )

                  What was false? Yes, you can obviously form an opinion about something immediately after you've watched it. That's not what was stated. I said you that cannot criticize UNDER FAIR USE in this manner. Streaming a copy of the content to your viewers through a "watch party", and criticizing it, is not covered by fair use. This is exactly the same as renting a movie, streaming it, and then making some comments.

                  Fair Use effectively allows you to reference the original work to illustrate or show the subject of yo

        • besides stream sniping isn't illegal afaik.

          Depends. It's walking a fine line.
          On its face, it's a copyright infringement.
          You rely on fair use to get you out of that infringement.

          That means you had better be familiar with what the current jurisprudence is on the matter, and to paint well within those lines- otherwise, it's undeniably copyright infringement- I mean you're literally using someone else's copyrighted content and giving it to others. You had better do a lot of talking over the content you have used.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by znrt ( 2424692 )

            i guess that's why plaintiffs went with copyright infringement.

            this is an anodine case i'm really not inclined to dig deeper into, but it touches the core issue and double edged sword of online anonymity. young me naively thought that the internet would be a revolution that would bring us together, multiply us, and in some respect it does, but it also multiplies how screwed we all are, and it's depressing. i'm afraid that regardless of what has actually happened here the copyright violation claim will prosp

            • i'm afraid that regardless of what has actually happened here the copyright violation claim will prosper and right or wrong it will be another brick in the wall.

              Absolutely.

              But the rich have used their money to squash bugs with legal proceedings forever.
              I see it as another brick in an infinite wall that doesn't grow or shrink... just gets bricks added to it.

      • Re:"Critics" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2025 @12:33AM (#65691992)

        For getting at the stream sniping, shouldn't YouTube's own copyright flagging mechanisms suffice?

        There shouldn't be any need to use the legal system if that worked ... unless it is about retribution.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by kick6 ( 1081615 )

          For getting at the stream sniping, shouldn't YouTube's own copyright flagging mechanisms suffice?

          There shouldn't be any need to use the legal system if that worked ... unless it is about retribution.

          I don't think those mechanisms function on live content.

          • Plus they're re-streaming it on Twitch which is a different platform.

            The issue here isn't about haters. I'm not a fan of Klein and I don't like copyright law in general, but Klein seemingly has an open and shut case. At least one of the defendants said during their stream "watch Ethan's video here (on my stream) so Ethan doesn't get any money or views". And then they silently watch or leave the room and let it be re-streamed. It's kind of what those illegal sports streaming sites do. One of the defendants p

        • Copyright on Youtube is hopelessly broken. A couple of legal channels I watch have had their content copied wholesale into new channels, with new AI generated intros and outros. The lawyers, some of whom specialize in IP law, and some of whom have some fairly large channels, had tremendous difficulties getting the cloned channels taken down. Subscribed viewers said that the clone channels were being recommended over their own channels by Youtube. It's a mess.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I have no idea why this is modded insightful.

        I am pretty sure that if the problem was looking at someone else's stream and claiming they were an idiot, there'd be hundreds of folk who had legal grounds to sue Ethan. He's been 'stealing content' like this for years.

        A simple google search for 'H3H3' reveals years of dramas unrelated to this topic, including Ethan essentially engineering a dogpiling campaign against his own partner.

        There are serious, much deeper problems here. You're basically sealioning.

    • If those outed mods think they can hide in my attic they can just forget it.

    • What if someone is using anonymity to shield themselves from legitimate libel charges? Can we have free speech without also having responsibility for what we say?

    • Runkle posted a good analysis [youtube.com] about this a few months ago.

      The crux is that Klein says his content is being re-streamed live - with no, or barely any, transformative additions by the re-streamers - explicitly in order to deny him some monetisation, and so don't qualify as "reaction" content or "fair use." This assertion appears to have some merit.

      Ultimately, rule 1 should apply to both sides: Don't be a dick.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RedK ( 112790 )

      > strip anonymity from critics.

      Blah blah blah.

      In the end, they weren't critics at all. They were doxxers and criminal stalkers who caused real world harm, and now they're about to find out.

      Either you're on their side, or you have no clue about Snark communities of reddit and discord at all. These are not innocent little boys who just want to critique others.

  • So it's like mediocrity battle royale? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday September 29, 2025 @11:17PM (#65691920)

    Redditors vs Youtubers.

    Who will win? Will I have enough popcorn to watch this to the end?

  • Why you shouldn't use real info on socials. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SlashDotCanSuckMy777 ( 6182618 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2025 @12:54AM (#65692010)

    Always use burner accounts.

  • This idiot can't stay out of court (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 30, 2025 @08:49AM (#65692508) Homepage Journal

    https://www.thewrap.com/youtub... [thewrap.com]

    Look at this fucking loser.

Slashdot Top Deals

Progress means replacing a theory that is wrong with one more subtly wrong.

Close