The thread where everyone in it hates streamers sponsored by DavidCroquet

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

FUCK

STREAMERS

[HaughtyFrank]

That said, Ethan's lawsuit is not exactly a truly legit one, he'll only get token damages.

What I wonder is how much damages he'll even be able to claim. These aren't exactly huge streamers. Let's be generous and say they cost him 10000 views, that still translates to very little ad revenue on YouTube

[Potato]

That said, Ethan's lawsuit is not exactly a truly legit one, he'll only get token damages.

What I wonder is how much damages he'll even be able to claim. These aren't exactly huge streamers. Let's be generous and say they cost him 10000 views, that still translates to very little ad revenue on YouTube

He can't exactly claim reputational damage either given that all streamers are fuckwits and everybody hates them.

[HaughtyFrank]

I know, I know, it's ratking Asmon but it's crazy what kind of friends Hasan has

[benji]

How has Vaush survived this clip? (I ask rhetorically.)

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

 

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

aint vaush the guy who has a folder of horse and loli porn?

[simiansmarts]

Once you reach a certain level of popularity as a streamer, you’re essentially untouchable

[HaughtyFrank]

If you look at the chat in that Vaush clip you'll see that his audience shares the exact same opinion he has

[Uncle]

aint vaush the guy who has a folder of horse and loli porn?

[Eric Cartman]

That said, Ethan's lawsuit is not exactly a truly legit one, he'll only get token damages.

What I wonder is how much damages he'll even be able to claim. These aren't exactly huge streamers. Let's be generous and say they cost him 10000 views, that still translates to very little ad revenue on YouTube

AFAIK, because it was filed at the library of congress or whatever, its automatically eligible for federal statutory damages as a baseline rather than having to prove a number for actual damages

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

(a)In General.—Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—
(1)the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
(2)statutory damages, as provided by subsection ©.
(b)Actual Damages and Profits.—
The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
©Statutory Damages.—
(1)Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2)In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 118(f)) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.
(3)
(A)In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.
(B)Nothing in this paragraph limits what may be considered willful infringement under this subsection.
©For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes” approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946”; 15 U.S.C. 1127).
(d)Additional Damages in Certain Cases.—
In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110(5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years.

So potentially the defendants are on the hook for $150k each + court costs (which I'd guess is probably that again)

[HaughtyFrank]

That said, Ethan's lawsuit is not exactly a truly legit one, he'll only get token damages.

What I wonder is how much damages he'll even be able to claim. These aren't exactly huge streamers. Let's be generous and say they cost him 10000 views, that still translates to very little ad revenue on YouTube

AFAIK, because it was filed at the library of congress or whatever, its automatically eligible for federal statutory damages as a baseline rather than having to prove a number for actual damages

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

(a)In General.—Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—
(1)the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
(2)statutory damages, as provided by subsection ©.
(b)Actual Damages and Profits.—
The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
©Statutory Damages.—
(1)Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2)In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 118(f)) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.
(3)
(A)In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.
(B)Nothing in this paragraph limits what may be considered willful infringement under this subsection.
©For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes” approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946”; 15 U.S.C. 1127).
(d)Additional Damages in Certain Cases.—
In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110(5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years.

So potentially the defendants are on the hook for $150k each + court costs (which I'd guess is probably that again)

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

total streamer defunding

[Besticus Maximus]

And by total streamer defunding, what I mean is give them more money obviously 

[Eric Cartman]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[Uncle]

asshole leftie debater thinks he got the ultimate gotcha on a parent who says children cannot consent to sexual situations and he would never put his child in that position, by completely misinterpreting what was said, so he can make a dead air soy face and pretend to be flabbergasted by what he just heard for clicks and clout

tells his audience to dox the parent and call CPS on him

twitter and even reddit aren't having it

https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/1ltelgh/dean_withers_tells_his_audience_to_doxx_someone/

[benji]

https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/1ltelgh/dean_withers_tells_his_audience_to_doxx_someone/

kenuffff
•
14h ago
Everything he does is performative he transferred coffee from a Starbucks cup to another cup because of Palestine.

 

CicadaGames
•
16h ago
I'm so confused because it really seems like the streamer is the one arguing in favor of children being exploited and trafficked...

customotto
•
16h ago
as long as they consent to it first, we’re not barbarians

[benji]

Trash living guy but has the clips and was posted in reddit thread so is Uncle's fault:

Probably but tbh I looked it up and I think "anxiety pens" are literally just like herbal supplements. I was thinking they were like Xanax in inhaler form. But no. It's just herbal supplements (CBD at most). It's as much an "anxiety" pen as kids who have flavored smoke vapes. For all intents and purposes, it's a vape

 anxiety pen emote

terrible_trivium_
•
17h ago
It's a reference to a girl on tiktok who got caught with a vape when underage and called it an anxiety pen as cover. Not so much a joke as a reference that old Asmongold fans didn't get.

FlexTape0
•
15h ago
I think the joke was that he was pretending to look like a tweaker but there's other clips of him genuinely getting mad when whoever he's talking to call it a vape pen so idk

so many layers

[benji]

KishiNoYume
•
18h ago
•
Edited 18h ago
Profile Badge for the Achievement Top 1% Commenter Top 1% Commenter
Dean is a 20 year old dude, born and raised in an upper class family in Los Angeles, who has never worked a job a day in his life,

I'm perplexed on why anyone would even follow this guy to hear his views on politics and life.. the guy literally has no real lived experience on any of the shit he talks about... unless its simply just purely from an entertainment standpoint?? how else can you take this guy seriously?

Ghostman_Jack
•
13h ago
Yeaaahhh. Could have been the lefts Joe Rogan or something. But I think he got too big too fast and it went straight to his head and he’s gone crazy.

peterhabble
•
18h ago
•
Edited 17h ago
Never forget that this guy brought on a black woman to beg her for forgiveness because he failed all black people via micro aggressions and to specifically give him permission to debate Trump supporters.

  

[simiansmarts]

[benji]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/19/style/dean-withers-tiktok.html
https://archive.ph/100ra


omg, just the first 20 seconds:

After I filmed this I learned a small detail. The whole Lifystyle scam thing apparently also occurred in 2022. So in 2022, he was calling people homophobic slurs, selling "books" in a get rich quick scheme, created a "course", and then suddenly started being a cheerleader for leftism. So yeah, more evidence that he simply made the decision to take money from young progressives cuz he wasn't any good at being a lifestyle scammer.

[HaughtyFrank]

Why is there a 12 year old debating people

[benji]

Why is there a 12 year old debating people

BRO WHISPERER

[Potato]

You should all kill yourselves for watching these morons

[benji]

You should all kill yourselves for watching these morons

Who's watching them?

[Uncle]

 

[simiansmarts]

 

Based Tiny

When they go low, we go subterranean

[HaughtyFrank]

What's amazing is that shutting up is free

[benji]

Maybe they were at camp to learn?

[DavidCroquet]

NordVPN sponsors streamers, but may take one down…conflicting feelings here.

[simiansmarts]

What's amazing is that shutting up is free

Dark humor is BACK, America!!!