Updates to Website

All Races, Ethnic Groups, Religions, Gay or Straight, CIS or Trans: If you can rock with us, you are one of us.

Registration: Do Not Use Gmail. We've had a lot of problems with them. Protonmail is your best alternative.

Configured the system: Yes you can register from the TOR network
Topics of Interest
Joshua Moon the owner of Kiwifarms
confirming he is personally "aggressively moderating" the manhate thread.
He said as much himself a while ago in the woman-hate thread. Users were wondering who was doing the banning in the man-hate thread because the ban messages they were getting were fairly unladylike. At that point Null came in and just said he did it.
aw jeez.png
 
@thefrogninja can you please post that recent appeals court verdict in the Russel Greer case you were referring to earlier? I don't want to go to his site to get it.

Null gave his take on his defense against Russel Greer in the following 2020 blog article on his Mad At The Internet website:
Mr. Englehardt posted the PDF here, but I read it myself and summarized it. In short, Josh's arguments were laughed at it. It's hard to tell if Josh is genuinely paying a layer like he claims to be with these kinds of mistakes. Hopefully Josh is lying and is representing himself. I had always wondered why Josh while discussing this particular case would always be super autistic with certain details, never failing to mention that "Greer NEVER pointed to an infringing file on my website" rather than conceding if he hosted said material or not. It turns out it is a key part of his argument. Josh one one hand wants to plead innocent that he is unaware of any copyright infringing content, while affirming that there exists said copyright-infringing content and that he tries to assert a Fair Use defense. Josh continued to mock Greer and essentially dared him to so him. Maybe Josh can do what he and his website tells Nick Rekieta to do and just apologize and avoid this lengthy and expensive lawsuit.

The district court correctly concluded Mr. Greer “sufficiently alleged” direct copyright infringement by a third party.”

Mr. Greer’s complaint alleged copyright violations related to his book and music. Mr. Greer provided the registration numbers and effective dates for both. RI.15, 17 (providing registration number of TX0008469519 and registration date of October 2017 for the book); RI.19 (providing registration number of SRu001366535 and registration date of April 2019 for the song). He included certificates from the United States Register of Copyrights. And Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms do not dispute these copyrights were validly registered and their certificates appropriately issued pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 408–410.

Recall, the Copyright Act grants copyright holders like Mr. Greer the generally exclusive rights “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies” and
“to distribute copies . . . of the copyrighted work to the public . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (3). Usually, when a third party reproduces or distributes a copyrighted work without authorization, they infringe on the exclusive rights of a copyright holder under 17 U.S.C. § 501.

In his complaint, Mr. Greer alleged he discovered the book “had been illegally put onto Kiwi Farms” in January 2018. RI.18. “Somebody,” he explained, “created a copy of [his] book and put it in a Google Drive that is accessible on Kiwi Farms.” RI.18. The complaint also included allegations "[o]ther users on Kiwi Farms have created unauthorized audio recordings of” the book “and have put them on various sites.” RI.19. Kiwi Farms, Mr. Greer continued, “has links to these audio recordings.” RI.19. As to the song, Mr. Greer alleged he found an “MP3 of his song was . . . on Kiwi Farms” in April 2019. RI.20. A Kiwi Farms user posted the song with the comment “Enjoy this repetitive turd.” RI.20. Another user commented, “Upload it here so no one accidentally gives [Mr. Greer] money.” RI.20. The complaint also alleged “Mr. Moon’s users spread Greer’s song across different sites.” RI.21.

Based on the complaint, we conclude, like the district court, Mr. Greer plausibly alleged direct, third-party infringement of copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 501.10

- On appeal, Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms suggest the copyright infringement here may have been “for purposes such as criticism and/or comment” and is thus protected under the “fair use” limitation of 17 U.S.C. § 107. Appellees Br. at 33. The paragraph discussion identifies the four factors in 17 U.S.C. § 107 but fails to explain what those factors are or why they apply here. We do not address this passing mention of a novel issue. See Day v. SkyWest Airlines, 45 F.4th 1181, 1192 (10th Cir. 2022) (declining “to consider [a] newly raised, inadequately briefed, and analytically complex issue in the first instance on appeal”).

- In any case, Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms did not plead the affirmative defense of fair use, and, “[a]s a general rule, a defendant waives an affirmative defense by failing to plead it.” Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 1040 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing Bentley v. Cleveland Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 41 F.3d 600, 604 (10th Cir. 1994)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) (explaining “a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense”).

- Perhaps to get around the bar of waiver, Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms describe fair use as “more than an affirmative defense; the language of the statute makes it clear that fair use is not infringement at all.” Appellees Br. at 33 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 107). But we decline the invitation to transfigure fair use into an un-waivable defense. See Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 143 S. Ct. 1258, 1285 n.21 (2023) (explaining “fair use is an affirmative defense” and the party invoking it “bears the burden to justify its taking” of the protected work); id. at 1288 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (discussing a party’s invocation of “the affirmative defense of ‘fair use’ to a claim of copyright infringement”).

The district court also concluded Mr. Greer “sufficiently alleged” “the defendant knew of the direct infringement.” RI.134–35. Here, too, we
agree.

Mr. Greer’s takedown notices complied with 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). A takedown notice under the DMCA needs to identify “the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed” and “the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity . . . .” 17 U.S.C.§ 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)–(iii). Here, Mr. Greer’s original email and DMCA notices identified the book and song protected by copyright, pointed to the locations on Kiwi Farms where these works were being copied and shared without authorization, and requested Mr. Moon, as site administrator, remove the infringing materials.

While Mr. Moon debated the merits and style of Mr. Greer’s takedown notices—claiming in emails the infringements were protected under fair use and mocking the use of a “template” for the DMCA request—the complaint sufficiently alleged that Mr. Moon knew of the alleged direct infringement.

For contributory liability to attach, the final Diversey prong requires a defendant to “cause” or “materially contribute to” third-parties’ direct infringement. Diversey, 738 F.3d at 1204. The Supreme Court has described “contributory infringers” as those who are “in a position to control the use of copyrighted works by others” and who “authorize[] the use without permission from the copyright owner.” Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 437. As applied here, Mr. Greer was required to plausibly allege Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms caused, materially contributed to, or authorized the direct infringement by Kiwi Farms users and other third parties of Mr. Greer’s book and song. We conclude he did so.

The district court correctly explained the Diversey factors and rightly identified the liberal pro se pleading standard. Nevertheless, it dismissed Mr. Greer’s contributory infringement claim after concluding, “[w]hat is missing is the Defendants’ intentionally causing, inducing, or materially contributing to the infringement.” RI.135. “It is not enough,” the district court continued, “for a defendant to have merely ‘permitted’ the infringing material to remain on the website, without having ‘induc[ed] or encourage[ed]’ the initial infringement.”11 RI.135 (citing Grokster, 545 U.S. at 930).

On appeal, Mr. Greer contends he “sufficiently pleaded factual allegations of inducement” and encouragement. Appellant Br. at 46–52. Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms reply they simply “allow[ed] an infringing use to exist on their website” and so cannot be “liable for the actions of [their] users, even if [they] knew about the alleged infringement.” Appellees Br. at 35.12

We discern no error in the district court’s explanation that contributory liability requires more than “merely ‘permitting’ the infringing material to remain on the website.” RI.135. And we conclude Kiwi Farms and Mr. Moon accurately state the law when they argue “a website owner or operator must do something other than allow an infringing use to exist on their website.” Appellees Br. at 35.

But these general principles of law are of little help here, where the record shows—and Mr. Greer’s complaint plausibly alleged—far more than “a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement . . . .” Grokster, 545 U.S. at 939 n.12 (emphasis added

When Mr. Greer discovered the book had been copied and placed in a Google Drive on Kiwi Farms, he “sent Mr. Moon requests to have his book removed . . . .” RI.18. Mr. Moon pointedly refused these requests. RI.18. In fact, instead of honoring the requests, Mr. Moon posted his email exchange with Mr. Greer to Kiwi Farms, belittling Mr. Greer’s attempt to protect his copyrighted material without resort to litigation. RI.18–19.

After the email request, Kiwi Farms users continued to upload audio recordings of Mr. Greer’s book, followed by digital copies of his song. When Mr. Greer discovered the song on Kiwi Farms, he sent Mr. Moon a takedown notice under the DMCA. Mr. Moon not only refused to follow the DMCA’s process for removal and protection of infringing copies, he “published [the] DMCA request onto [Kiwi Farms],” along with Mr. Greer’s “private contact information.” RI.22. Mr. Moon then “emailed Greer . . . and derided him for using a template for his DMCA request” and confirmed “he would not be removing Greer’s copyrighted materials.” RI.23. Following Mr. Moon’s mocking refusal to remove Mr. Greer’s book and his song, Kiwi Farms users “have continued to exploit Greer’s copyrighted material,” including two additional songs and a screenplay. RI.23.

Construing the pro se complaint liberally and drawing all reasonable inferences in Mr. Greer’s favor, we find Mr. Moon’s alleged conduct to fit within our understanding of material contribution.13 Mr. Greer sent repeated requests to Mr. Moon, identifying the materials on which he held the copyright, as well as where and how his rights were being infringed. Mr. Moon not only expressly refused to remove the materials, he mockingly posted the correspondence to Kiwi Farms. Under the circumstances, this is not the passive behavior of one “merely permitting” infringing material to remain on his site. Rather, we conclude a reasonable inference from the facts alleged is that the reposting of the takedown notice, combined with the refusal to take down the infringing material, amounted to encouragement of Kiwi Farms users’ direct copyright infringement.

Mr. Greer’s complaint alleged Mr. Moon knew Kiwi Farms was an audience that had been infringing Mr. Greer’s copyrights and would happily continue to do so. Indeed, Kiwi Farms users had been uploading Mr. Greer’s copyrighted materials with the explicit goal of avoiding anyone “accidentally giv[ing] [Mr. Greer] money.” RI.20. Further infringement followed—encouraged, and materially contributed to, by Mr. Moon. See Diversey, 738 F.3d at 1204. IV

We hold Mr. Greer has stated plausible claims of contributory copyright infringement against Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 40835
Null has given Android raptor a temporary ban.
I was about to type why Josh doesn't ban Android Raptor for being easily baited dyke instead of screaming at @SSj_Ness, Feline, and Sammich which are subjectively better users than AR. Thank god it's a temp ban, I like AR actually. Her sperging over abortion will never not be funny.
 
In short, Josh's arguments were laughed at it. It's hard to tell if Josh is genuinely paying a layer like he claims to be with these kinds of mistakes. Hopefully Josh is lying and is representing himself.

I know you always take the most bad faith interpretation of everything Null says and does, but no, Null really does have representation in this case, his lawyer is called Gregory G. Skordas, look him up, he's a real practicing attorney. Null isn't stupid enough to try represent himself. And another thing you got wrong: Null readily admits that he has a copy of Greer's song on his forum, he insists it's not copyright infringement for him to host a mirror of the song because he is hosting a mirror only in the context of enabling public discussion of the song due to Greer's attempts to prevent public discussion of that song under the guise of a copyright violation claim. How can people talk about a song if the person who made it is going out of his way to prevent them from discussing said song?

Here's Null on MATI yesterday complaining about Rekieta making fun of him for losing the appeal:


Because God forbid someone else would express the same kind of Schadenfreude that Null himself always expresses about others' misfortunes.

4chan has a thread about Null losing the appeal:

Archived: https://archive.ph/xkAAV

I checked out the organization that represents Greer:


They don't mention their victory on their cases overview page:

 
Last edited:
joshydidntsingbass.png
The broom has no bass, it's all toppy drone. Maybe he should invest in one of those "Magic Mics" that can transpose the pitch down. I could give him some vocalist tips on how to get his voice lower... but the guy's got that personality disorder where he acts like a wanker if people know better than him. WHich... considering how uppity uppity he is... is most people.
 
Lmfao my voice is somehow always deeper in audio than irl, to the point when i hear my own voice i even get surprised by it sometimes. I assumed voices were deeper in calls, recorded, or streamed audio. Which if that's the case then his voice is actually deeper in his streams than it is in person. I notice it when i forget to hang up the phone when someone i am talking to walks in the door. I hear my deep ass voice on their phone and think "fuck is that really me" when its on speaker.
 
Rekieta to Null: "You're a lovable retard. I like you. You don't believe me but I always have."... what's the point of telling Null this over and over, telling him how much brotherly love you have for him? Love only those worthy and welcoming of your love, fuck all the rest. Null is a hater, he only understands hate so don't waste your love on him, give him what he actually wants, which is your hatred, not your love.


Rekieta, I don't know if you will ever see this, but seriously: Null is not gonna bury the hatchet and just talk shit over. Once he burns a bridge, it's burned forever. This drama between you is just way too profitable for him over "gay shit like friendships". You are the Youtuber with the bigger channel and the millions of views, so by milking the drama between you, Null is making money off of your audience. You really don't seem to understand how Null looks at his drama purely as a business opportunity to bring disappointed ex-Rekieta viewers over to KF and MATI. That's the bottom line, and the quicker you figure that out about him, the easier it will be to completely ignore him going forward.


Rekieta: "Hey faggot, message me so we can work this out.", that's never gonna happen. Null can definitely "afford this gay bullshit" if that Mother Jones claim about the $300k in bitcoin was true.

We must all aspire to reach this blissful state of Pure Zen:

PureZen.jpg
 
Back
Top