So I read through the whole thing, and I can see why they say defamation and libel cases are so hard to prove in the US. Quite literally all his complaints of libel or defamation are covered under the 1st amendment, and arguably my favorite paragraph in the libel section is this one: Translation: BAAAAAW somebody said mean things about me on the internet. The things they claim in this document are just ridiculous, half of what they're suing about could be applied to any shit tabloid on a rack in the supermarket, and the other half is supposed copyright infringement over youtube videos linked to in the article (videos I might add youtube long ago removed due to DMCA claims from whom I would assume is the man in question) or the various pictures dumped to the article which I'm willing to bet came straight from his facebook page or some other public venue he posted them to. Further, he claims that he's managed to get ED shutdown multiple times with DMCA claims, only for it to spring up again. Considering his article didn't exist until August 2, 2014 this is a straight up lie, and I believe perjury with malicious intent (whoops). Near as I can tell, his "notification" was in the form of a copy/paste DMCA claim which he used to vandalize the article, and then Boudica reverted; which explains the reposting claim, I guess. If he sent one to Zaiger or the server host in Ukraine I can't say for certain, but even then Zaiger would have just ignored it and so would the host because DMCA claims hold no weight in Ukraine. They name 5 ED users in their claim; Hipcrime, VX, Boudica, Autard, and myself; and 4 LimbLengtheningForum members; Dameon, Sweden, Orland, and Ronaldo; they then go on to name 11 more anonymous posters as defendants, and complain that they can't identify them because they were anonymous. I guess that includes those of us they named by user names as well, and is basically saying "I don't know who these people are but I totally want to sue them for saying mean things about me, and I expect the court to help me do it," if I'm translating my legalese correctly; again something the courts told the MPAA was a waste of their time, as the judicial system is not responsible for helping them collect evidence in a civil court case. Speaking strictly about the ED article, this paragraph is saying that making any edits to the article is tantamount to assisting in copyright infringement. While arguably the driving force behind the article was Autard, judging by the edits history, this is so they can justify including Hipcrime; for the crime of adding a category tag to the article; VX; for the crime of formatting the picture galleries; Boudica; for the crime of reverting Anderson's vandalism; and myself; for the crime of moving broken youtube videos to the talk page; in the lawsuit. If this sounds an awful lot like a frivolous lawsuit from somebody who's super buttmad about something they read on the internet, it's because it is. The filing actually consists of four civil charges in case anyone was wondering: Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement, Vicarious Copyright Infringement, Common Law Defamation and Libel. The first three are an attempt to try and justify the inclusion of anyone who was tangentially related to the article, and whatever was posted on the leg lengthening forum, and the last one is just more being a baby over things people say on the internet. In regards to the Vicarious Copyright Infringement charge, there are two sections of note. In my personal opinion, these two paragraphs show that they're too thick to even sue the right people. The only person on ED who has the ability to straight up purge an article from the system is Zaiger, as far as I know; sysops can flush an article but it can always be unflushed at any time (even if hidden); and the only person on ED who makes active money from ED is Zaiger who has trouble using that money the site generates just to keep it running. Of course ED's TOU straight up states what the purpose of the website is, and that it's not responsible for the shit that gets posted on it so Anderson and his lawyers had to go after the next most plausible target in their buttmad desperation. Which means that nobody they've listed in their filing even has the ability to make money off of the article. In regards to control, the bulk of the copyright complaint is in regards to posted pictures, all of which are likely pictures Anderson posted publicly himself, or promotional material for that movie he was in. (and apparently owns the copyright to if I understand the filing correctly) As for the "6 unpublished movies Vol 1." that he claims were infringed upon, to my knowledge I don't see any of that hosted on ED as they were just youtube videos embedded into the article; videos that were removed by youtube in compliance with a DMCA takedown they recieved prior to filing. Right at the top of the filing, by the way they say this: I don't have any kind of point to make about that, I just wanted to reiterate that they're trying to sue a bunch of anonymous people on the internet for posting and saying mean things about them. I'm no lawyer, but the bulk of it sounds like desperate hogwash. Frankly I think the law firm whom Anderson hired should be ashamed for taking money from a client with so flimsy a case. Then again, most lawyers have no shame.
Do you want to know why this is bullshit? Because it claims all of you reside in the state of New York. This is false, no? Isn't interstate matter a federal thing, and hence not a court who's time is to be wasted by some greedy chink lawyer? Edit: Although it is a United States Court, it seems confined to the Eastern District of New York.
Regardless of where we live, here's the reasoning they make for the case being located in New York. Translation: The copyright infringement claims are federal claims, and relate to our petty civil claim of libel and defamation. Translation: Because our client lives in New York any damages done to him happened in New York. Also, even though we don't know who any of the people are that we're suing, we're super sure they live in New York as well. Translation: Our client lives in New York so you have to put up with our bullshit. Translation: DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM, MOTHERFUCKER???
It is only a matter of time before he sues the defacto owner of encyclopediadramatica.es Mr. Daniel Brandt
I propose all of us make a small, janitorial edit to the article to see how many John Does we can get in his lolsuit. the record currently stands at 20
Jesus, that was worse tl;dr that the legal document. Good job butthurting some insecure niggercum-proteinshake-drinking homosexual, you may return to your wiki now.
Should whip up some socks with really terrible or offensive names just so they're on the official record.
What's sad is that I did more due diligence in my butthurt than those hack lawyers manged with their toilet paper thin filing.
.jpg)
