1A Intelligence Desk

← Back to search results

Transcript Details

WE JUST SUED FRAUDITOR DMA IN FEDERAL COURT!!!

and he's going to sue me. I'm looking at damages of $9,000. I would love for you to be able to prove that you make $12,000 in a month. Bro, I would love to see that. Yeah. He hope you he counter sues me, gets all his money back. That that'll be a laugh, dude. That'll be the day that that happens. All right, so that was 4 days ago and here we are just 4 days later and what he claimed would never happen just happened. DMA just got counters sued by us for abusing the DMCA takedown system, aka false copyright strikes. Now, if you guys are familiar with our community, you know that for years, the frauditors have used the DMCA takedown system as a weapon. And now I'm finally able to hold one fraud auditor accountable and that is DMA because he has caused a lot of damages to my business and he will be held accountable. Now other frauditors might get sued in the future but for now we are going to start with DMA. Now let me tell you how we got here. I'm sure you guys are familiar with what happened by now. I did a live stream. DMA came on. He said I don't have a problem with what you do. He asked me to play five of his videos. I informed him that I was making a lot of views on his videos. We'll get into details when we look at the lawsuit over here, but that's what happened. Now, what I didn't talk about too much yet is that once he filed those eight malicious copyright strikes in July, and then he filed another one in October, I emailed him and informed him that he was going to harm my business. he was going to cause a lot of financial damages. Now, for some reason, he didn't believe me, but it's true and we can prove it. So, what I'm going to show you right now is the email that he read on his live stream 4 days ago, which is really hilarious. The timing is absolutely incredible because that is actually part of our evidence. And he was saying how he's not going to be held accountable. We can't prove the damages. And yet, here we are proving the damages, holding him accountable. It's almost poetic if you ask me. But take a look at this. >> You filed eight illegal false copyright strikes. They're illegal, huh? They're illegal copyright strikes. Like they're against the law. Is that what you're saying, dude? Dummy. >> Yes, they're illegal. Yes, they are against the law. That's why we just sued you for it. But sure, keep embarrassing yourself. >> Yeah. Okay, bud. And my channel is now suspended for 3 weeks. Well, that's what you get, bud. until the videos are reinstated. You know very well that my videos are fair use. I don't know very well that they're fair use. I've never thought they're fair use. They're completely not fair use. And we're going to find out, aren't we, bud? You are only doing this to temporarily damage my channel and my business. I talked to a lawyer. Nope. You didn't talk to a lawyer. That's a lie. You always said that, oh, I have a a lawyer retained. You said that you have a lawyer retained. Well, you didn't have a lawyer retained when I sued you, right? you had to go find a lawyer. What happened to your lawyer that was retained? >> So, when all of this happened, I did talk to a lawyer in Canada that informed me about my rights. But when it comes to this lawsuit, it is in California. So, obviously, I can't use a Canadian lawyer in California. So, that's why I had to find a California lawyer, which is what I did, right? Oh, and then he's going to sue me for loss of income. I make $12,000 per month. You don't make $12,000 per month, bro. Okay, I've seen your views, man. You don't make $12,000 per month. You might make like 3,000 a month, bro. And you know that's true. Okay, cuz he starts talking about my views. Trust me, he does not make no $12,000 a month on his YouTube channel. I can guarantee that. And then he's going to sue me. I'm looking at damages of 9,000. I would love for you to be able to prove that you make $12,000 in a month, bro. I would love to see that. Well, I'm going to be more than happy to prove that to you, DMA, in just a few moments. Be patient. But what's really important here is that he is not denying that he's going to cause financial harm to me. He's not denying that he's going to cause me to lose money. What he's saying is that I cannot prove the damages. That's all he's saying. So, he's pretty much confessing, but he's saying that I can't prove damages. So, we'll see how that pans out in just the next few minutes. But let me pass the shovel back to DMA so he can keep digging. You already know the videos will be reinstated in three weeks through the counter notification system. Yeah, because you know that the only way to get them up is to file a lawsuit and you just thought that. Remember what you said? It's a one ina billion chance. It's a one ina billion chance that he'll find a lawyer, right? Well, I found a lawyer. So here what he's doing is playing semantics. He is spinning my words, attaching his own meaning to them. And basically when I said there's one in a billion chance that this would happen, I was saying it because the case is completely worthless. There is no reason to file this case, there's no money to be made and all the facts are on our side. My videos are clearly fair use. I have permission from the content creator to react to them. So it's like, what are you doing here? You're just wasting your time and humiliating yourself. And unfortunately, you found someone that is going to fight back. Now, when I really think about it, actually, it could have worked if I would have settled. This is a very good tactic to get people to settle. You file a [ __ ] lawsuit that isn't worth anything, but is going to cost a h 100red grand to fight. It would be tempting to settle, except I don't negotiate with frauditors and you found the wrong one. You found one that is going to fight back. Anyways, the next segment I'm going to have to put in fast forward because it's a pretty long segment, but he is calling me a liar, saying that I can't prove that I was making $12,000 bucks a month at that time. And he's just doubling down and tripling down on it. It's uh something else. Take a look at this. >> And you're you're just such a liar, dude. You don't make $12,000 a month on YouTube. There's no way. There's no way, bro. I've seen your views. You don't get enough views to make that. Even if you post a lot of videos, bro, I mean, on a good month, you might make four or five grand, dude. On a good month, you ain't making no 12 grand. No way. You know you're not making no 12 grand, bro. Come on, man. Stop being a liar, bro. Don't you have any type of conscience, bro? Like, you know you're lying, man. You don't think that like me just lying to my audience like that? Just lying to every single person? Like, you think I'm stupid? You think that I don't know you don't make 12 grand a month on YouTube? I'm a YouTuber, man. I know how much people make. I've always had more views than you on my long form videos, too. There's sometimes that you've beat me on long form videos, but it's that's like the the exception, though. I've never made 12 grand a month, and my views are always been more than yours on my long form. So, there's no way, dude. You're a liar. All right. So, I want you guys to understand this. He just spent the last 3 minutes calling me a liar just to be proven wrong. I'm about to prove him wrong in just a few moments live on top of that. so that there's no accusations of editing screenshots and [ __ ] like that. So he is so confident but yet he is so wrong. Now what else could he be so confident about just to be proven wrong later down the road? Fair use. Absolutely. And that's what I'm saying. These frauditors, they are unable to question themselves. They have an idea in their mind and they cannot possibly admit that they might be wrong. they might have the wrong information this entire time. For example, he's operating a shorts channel, so he doesn't know how much a normal YouTube channel makes. Anyways, so he said, "I can't prove damages." And as you can see, my recent income, not the greatest, 1,500 bucks last month. You know, it's miles away from what it used to be because frauditors have caused so much damages to my business with all these false copyright strikes. Granted, I do post a lot less videos, but they still have caused a lot of recent damages. Now, we'll talk about that at trial. That's not what we're trying to prove here today. What we're trying to prove is immediate damages that DMA caused to my business in 2023. Now, let me go back to a custom timeline. And what we're going to do is go back to 2023. We're going to check 2 months prior to the false copyright strikes. So, the false copyright strikes happened on July 4th, 2023. So, what we're going to do is check May of 2023 and see 12,000 bucks. That's exactly what I told him. So, two months prior to the false copyright strike, 12 grand. Now, let's check June of 2023, $13,000. So, that's how much I was making. So, everything he has said about me not making that amount of money in 2023 and not being able to prove damages is a total lie. It's just been disproven within seconds. Now, let's take a look at July, the month that he hit me with those false copyright strikes. What do we see? $7,000. So, that's already a lot of damages right there. You can see that I lost a ton of money because of his false copyright strikes. and he will be held accountable. Now, another date that's really important is October because October he filed more dirty copyright strikes and there was more damages, 8,000. So, just between October and July there's $9,000 of damages, but we can prove a lot more and will prove it at trial. But now that DMA's lies has been completely debunked and damages have been proven without a shadow of a doubt, let's take a look at the counter claim, which is our lawsuit against him. So, it says here that we are asking for a jury trial and this is our counter claim. I'm not going to read the entire thing, but I will leave the link where you can download the document if you want to read the whole thing. It is very well written. I think Steve did an excellent job on this. So let's take a look. So in or around early 2022, plaintiffs DMA became aware of counter claimments me and my wife YouTube channel and its coverage of plaintiff's content. Plaintiffs affirmatively engage with counter claimments and his audience including participating in a live stream discussion on the frauditor channel, appearing on live panels, requesting that specific videos be played. That's his videos, by the way. And engaging directly with counter claimants during broadcast. During a publicly available live stream, plaintiff expressly stated words the effect of, "I do not have any problem with what you guys do. You do your own thing. I do what I do." And otherwise disclaimed any intent to pursue legal action against counter claimment. See exhibit A live streamshot and transcript. Counter claimants relied on this. During the same live stream, plaintiff acknowledged that they had suffered little to no commercial harm from counter claimments activities, including stating that only two shirts had been sold and that no meaningful damages had occurred. Plaintiffs remained on the live stream for approximately 90 minutes, disconnected and rejoined multiple times, and continued to participate after acknowledging the nature of Counter Claimment's channel. its prior videos and its ongoing coverage of plaintiff's content. Plaintiffs were expressly informed that counter claimment had already created numerous videos covering plaintiff's content, including videos that had achieved significant viewership, and plaintiffs raised no objection to such coverage or videos. Following the live stream, plaintiffs continued cordial communications with counter claimants for months and did not revoke permission, object to counter claimments use of plaintiff's content, or issue any cease and desist notice. Plaintiffs subsequently sent counter claimment images and materials specifically labeled for use on counter claimments live streams and show, including messages stating, "For you, my love, and for your show." C, exhibit B, email correspondence and attached images. So, I want you guys to fully understand this. The day before he filed the copyright strikes, he is sending me material that he has created to post on my show. He's encouraging my content with his material. Like, you can't even make this [ __ ] up. and the very next day he files eight false copyright strikes and shuts down my channel for three weeks. So on one hand you're sending me content to use on my channel the day before and then the very next day you filed these illegal copyright strikes, dude. Like what are you doing? Anyways, like I said, you will be held accountable. Let's keep reading the lawsuit. All right. So, at no time prior to submitting the copyright takedown notices did plaintiffs revoke consent, object to counter claimment's use of the footage, demand removal of any content, or otherwise communicate that counter claimment lack permission to publish or monetize the videos at issue. To the contrary, plaintiffs knowingly participated in live stream interviews, voluntarily appeared on counter claimments channel and expressly or impletedly authorized recording, distribution, and public display of their content. During the same time period, plaintiffs and their associates sent written communications to Counterclaimment, accusing him of misconduct unrelated to copyright, threatening to publicly disclose private communications or recordings, and demanding that counter claimment remove or alter his commentary content while referencing the use of platform reporting and enforcement processes as leverage. So, what he's referring to here is the situation with the bounty hunter. Remember, if you've been a fraud or troll subscriber for a while, you'll remember the bounty hunter situation. DMA docks this bounty hunter's phone number. I had an issue with it and then we had a back and forth. Turns out the bounty hunter kind of lied about me and they believed it, but we handled it like a dog. We squashed the beef. And what's really important is the next paragraph, but I do want to say before I read that that he did threat me. He did threaten to use the platform to try to penalize me in some way. But what's really important is that during these communications, plaintiffs did not revoke any prior permission, issue a cease and desist notice, or identify any specific copyright objection to counter claimments videos. Instead, plaintiffs abruptly submitted multiple copyright takedown notices against counter claimment through YouTube, invoking the DMCA enforcement process without prior notice or revocation of permission. YouTube copyright strike notices and plaintiffs issued eight copyright strikes in close temporal proximity, placing counter claimants YouTube channel at immediate risk of suspension or permanent termination. The copyright strikes targeted videos that plaintiffs knew were commentary and reaction parody videos and that plaintiffs had previously approved, endorsed or encouraged through their participation and communications. Plaintiffs submitted the takedown notices without mentioning their prior permission, participation or consent and without conducting a proper fair use analysis. Plaintiffs knew or should have known that the representation made in the takedown notices were materially false and made in bad faith. As a direct result of the bad faith copyright strikes, Counterclaimment faced the imminent termination of his YouTube channel under YouTube's copyright enforcement policies. To prevent permanent loss of the channel, counter claimment was compelled to submit eight counter notifications through YouTube, which constituted the only available mechanism to restore the videos and avoid termination. The counter notification process required counter claimant to consent to jurisdiction in the United States despite being a Canadian citizen. Counter claimants consent to jurisdiction was obtained under duress and under threat of permanent channel termination resulting from plaintiff's copyright strike. Plaintiff's ability to invoke jurisdiction over counter claimment was predicated on their own submission of the copyright takedown notices. As a direct and proximate result of plaintiff's action, counter claimment suffered immediate and substantial financial harm. Counterclaimment experienced a documented loss of advertising revenue exceeding $9,000 in the immediate aftermath of the copyright strikes. Counterclaimment's channel further suffered algorithmic suppression, delayed recovery, and prolonged revenue loss over the subsequent months as a result of the strikes. And at the time of the takedowns, counter claimment maintained existing and prospective sponsorship and business relationships which were disrupted or lost due to videos removal, channel instability, and reputational harm, plaintiff's conduct, damage, counter claimants, reputation, goodwill, and business expectancy. All right, so you might ask yourself, well, what are we suing him for? What are the claims? DMA has four claims against us. We have three. The first one is violation of 17 USC 512F. That pretty much means filing fraudulent copyright strikes. Now, we are also asking for a declaratory judgment. So, that will prove that our videos are fair use and I had permission and it will prevent further strikes in the future. And we are also suing him for torches interference with prospective economic advantage. And you guys can see that it says here against all plaintiffs with an S. At this moment, it's just DMA. But who knows, maybe more people could be added to this lawsuit. I'm just saying, guys, if you're going to file false copyright strikes against me, you better think about it twice. As you guys can see, I have no problem holding DMA accountable, even though he has a lawyer that is willing to work on contingency and will handle it without DMA paying a dime. This is a lot more expensive for me to file this than to just defend myself, but I'm doing it because he needs to be held accountable. So, if you think you are going to file copyright strikes or join a silly little lawsuit and try to squeeze me out of money, it's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. So, this is what we are asking for. Prayer for relief. Wherefore counter claimment respectfully requests that the court enter a judgment in favor of counterclaimment on all causes of action. Declare that counter claimments videos are protected by 17 USC 512F. Issue a declaratory judgment that counter claimments did not infringe on plaintiff's copyright. Award actual damages, consequential damages, and statutory damages were available subject to proof. Award attorney fees and costs. grant injunctive relief preventing further misuse of the DMCA and grant such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. And that was submitted on January 6. Once again, I think Steve did an amazing job on this. I'm very happy with this and I'm looking forward to see where it goes. Now, another thing that's really important that happened yesterday is that we answered the complaint. And DMA and some other mouth jewelers said that, "Oh, well, how come you were talking about fair use? Now you're talking about permission. The thing that they don't understand is you can have multiple defenses. In our case, we have six defenses. So the first one is failure to state a claim. Defendants alleged that each cause of action in the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against these answering defendants. The second defense is statute of limitation. The first amended complaint is barred in whole or in part by applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to those set forth in title 17 of the United States code. The third affirmative defense is failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate the damages alleged in the first amended complaint. Now, the fourth is unclean hands. Shout out to unclean hands. Plaintiffs claimed are barred by plaintiff's own misconduct and inequitable actions. Defendants allege on information and belief that plaintiff granted a license or otherwise authorized defendants's use of the work at issue in defendants videos and represented that plaintiff would not pursue legal action but has now reversed course and filed this lawsuit. Now the fifth affirmative defense is fair use. Plaintiff's claim are barred by 17 USC 107 fair use doctrine. Now the sixth affirmative defense is authorization and consent. Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that the alleged uses, performances or displays, if any, were authorized, license, permitted or otherwise consented to in whole or in part, including through express and implied license and or permissions granted by the rights holder or their agents. All right, so there's something I want you guys to understand. It would have been so much easier to just roll over, give DMA 15, $20,000 maybe, and then just pretend like none of this ever happened. It would have been so easy. I'm sure I could have even agreed for him to let me continue react to his videos even after a settlement. But we do not negotiate with frauditors. What he did was wrong and he needs to pay for it. He needs to be held accountable. It is not the path of least resistance. It is not the easiest path, but it is the path that we are choosing to take and we will take this all the way through. Now, it doesn't matter if it costs a 100,000, $200,000, $300,000. We are fighting this all the way through. Now, talking about money, we are now in total because I just got the bill yesterday, which is 6,146 USD, which is roughly $9,000. We have spent so far $40,000 on this Canadian. And we have received roughly 26 to $27,000. There was about 20 grand on PayPal and then $6,179 on GoFundMe. So, so far we're in the red approximately $14,000, which is perfectly fine because we are fighting for what we believe in. We are putting our money where our mouth is, and we are fighting this all the way through and holding DMA accountable by filing a lawsuit against him and possibly others in the future. So, we want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has donated. You guys have been able to offset a very large portion of the $40,000 we have spent so far. We are very, very grateful. And if you guys want to continue to help, that's fantastic. If you encourage our fight against frauditors and holding them accountable in court, we truly appreciate it. If you're not able to, that is also perfectly fine. Focus on yourself and you can help just by watching the videos, leaving comments. That helps a lot. So, thank you so much to everybody. And like I said, I promised you guys we are not settling and I promised you guys that we will hold him accountable and this is proof that we are respecting our promise. We have now filed a lawsuit against him and we will see what happens next. I will keep you updated. Thank you so much for watching. Leave a comment down below and I'll see you guys on the next one. >> [music] >> Destined to failure is [music] what you will always be. Failed electrician, [music] failed activist, failed boyfriend. Don't you see? But don't you worry. Tyone is waiting [singing] [music] for thee. You can [singing] still call him your lovely bulky sweet tea. [music]