{"id":75300,"date":"2024-02-01T09:01:12","date_gmt":"2024-02-01T09:01:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=75300"},"modified":"2024-02-01T09:01:12","modified_gmt":"2024-02-01T09:01:12","slug":"jake-paul-ppv-boxing-piracy-amnesty-misled-the-public-lawsuit-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=75300","title":{"rendered":"Jake Paul PPV Boxing Piracy Amnesty Misled The Public, Lawsuit Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Triller\"<\/a>In a matter of weeks, the controversial Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren PPV boxing event will turn three years old and still be remembered for all that went wrong.<\/p>\n

After the H3 Podcast aired a short clip of the event on YouTube, featuring a fight that lasted just 119 seconds, Triller filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against creators Ethan and Hila Klein. Even today, it still seems nowhere near done.<\/p>\n

What began as a fairly bitter and personal affair has left both sides with little to celebrate since the lawsuit was filed in 2021. With no obvious benefit beyond money for the overall winner, not losing face down on the canvas appears to be the only discernible prize.<\/p>\n

Convoluted Lawsuit Finds Knockout Punch Elusive<\/h2>\n

More detailed background on the case is available here<\/a>. In summary, H3 says that when it showed the fight along with biting commentary on YouTube, that was fair use, even though the video shown was sourced from a pirated copy of the PPV event. <\/p>\n

For its part, Triller disagrees, bitterly.<\/p>\n

Last week, Ted Entertainment, Inc. (TEI), the company behind various H3-branded channels, filed a counter-complaint against counter-defendant Triller. TEI\u2019s focus is an amnesty program widely publicized by Triller in the wake of the Paul vs. Askren fight. <\/p>\n

For a payment of just $49.99, Triller said that people who pirated the PPV could avoid being targeted in legal action that would demand $150,000 from each and every person who watched the fight without paying for it. TEI says the promotion of the amnesty program was misleading and deceptive.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the course of advertising and promoting its so-called \u2018amnesty program\u2019 Triller made false and misleading statements that TEI\u2019s podcast episode entitled Jake Paul Fight Was A Disaster<\/em>\u2026.infringed the Broadcast and that anyone who viewed the Podcast engaged in copyright infringement,\u201d TEI informs the court.<\/p>\n

\u201cEven worse, Triller made false and misleading statements about the financial ramifications of watching the Podcast to persuade the public to pay Triller $49.99 each to participate in Triller\u2019s so-called amnesty program. This counterclaim is directed at exposing Triller\u2019s false and misleading statements and force it to account for its deception.\u201d<\/p>\n

TEI Watched a Pirated Live Stream to Avoid Giving Paul Money<\/h2>\n

TEI\u2019s counter-complaint begins with a potted history of its critique of Jake Paul. TEI accuses Paul of engaging in \u201chighly aggressive, manipulative and avaricious marketing practices to his child audience to induce them to purchase his merchandise.\u201d Jake\u2019s brother, Logan, is described as equally problematic, but the focus is on Jake\u2019s boxing career and TEI\u2019s scathing criticism.<\/p>\n

\u201cTEI produced episodes on the H3 Podcast Channel that criticized Jake Paul\u2019s boxing matches as being horribly lopsided in favor of Jake Paul because he was either significantly larger or younger than his opponents,\u201d TEI says. <\/p>\n

\u201cThese episodes produced by TEI also criticized Jake Paul\u2019s boxing matches as cash grabs intended to bait the audience to pay steep pay-per-view prices in the hope of seeing Jake Paul defeated.\u201d<\/p>\n

After describing Paul\u2019s matchup with Askren as a \u201cfarce that degraded the sport of boxing,\u201d at a PPV price point that was \u201cprohibitively expensive for his target audience,\u201d TEI makes an unexpected admission.<\/p>\n

Before reviewing the fight on YouTube, TEI employees necessarily needed to watch the fight. However, since that would mean handing over cash to the benefit of Jake Paul, that option was ruled out.<\/p>\n

\u201cTEI, however, did not want to provide any financial support for Jake Paul (or for any other endeavor involving Jake Paul). Consequently, on April 17, 2021 (i.e., the day of the Broadcast), TEI employees watched an unauthorized stream of the Broadcast on the Internet,\u201d TEI informs the court.<\/p>\n

\u201cTEI did not make a simultaneous copy of the Broadcast when it was viewed on April 17, 2021. TEI did pay the $49.99 viewing fee for the Broadcast at a later date.\u201d<\/p>\n

Triller\u2019s Amnesty Program<\/h2>\n

TEI says that on or around May 3, 2021, Triller\u2019s head of piracy, Matt St. Claire, sent a press release to various media outlets that advertised and promoted Triller\u2019s amnesty program<\/a>. TEI uses sections of a subsequent Reuters article to support its claims that Triller\u2019s statements not only misled the public, but did so at the expense of the podcast.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\"TEI-triller-statements\"<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n

\u201cThe aforementioned statements from the Triller Press Release gave the false and misleading impression of fact that: (1) the Podcast itself constituted copyright infringement; (2) anyone who viewed the Podcast was liable for copyright infringement; (3) that the potential exposure for each view of the Podcast was up to $150,000 per view; (4) that TEI runs a criminal enterprise; and (5) TEI resold the Broadcast and profited from doing so,\u201d TEI continues.<\/p>\n

Since Reuters articles are widely syndicated, Triller\u2019s statements also appeared in articles published elsewhere. TEI claims that the substantial audience led to \u201ccountless online posts\u201d in which the company was labeled a criminal copyright infringer. <\/p>\n

Overall, TEI says that a substantial number of people \u201cwere deceived (or had a tendency to be deceived)\u201d into believing that since they watched the H3 podcast, they were also liable for infringement. <\/p>\n

Reasons for People to Settle<\/h2>\n

TEI says that the above led some to believe that the only way to avoid liability was to participate in Triller\u2019s amnesty program. To encourage them to do so, it\u2019s alleged that Triller offered to drop the lawsuit against TEI if it paid a settlement of $900,000 and made the following public statement:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\"settleandshout\"<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n

\u201cBy this statement, Triller requested TEI to falsely represent: (1) that TEI paid millions of dollars to settle the Initial Complaint \u2013 despite Triller demanding only $900,000; and (2) TEI was knowledgeable of Triller\u2019s watermark technology \u2013 as no such information was shared with TEI,\u201d the company adds.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe clear purpose of this statement, just like Triller\u2019s Press Release, was to advertise and promote Triller\u2019s so-called amnesty program (in general) and to TEI\u2019s audience (in particular).\u201d<\/p>\n

TEI says that the alleged conduct above caused it to suffer financial loss and reputational damage. The company requests a judgment for disgorgement of Triller\u2019s profits, compensation for its losses, an award for treble damages under the Lanham Act<\/a>, plus costs and attorneys\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n

TEI\u2019s counter-complaint against Triller Fight Club II is available here<\/a> (pdf)<\/em><\/p>\n

From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n

Powered by WPeMatico<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a matter of weeks, the controversial Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren PPV boxing event will turn three years old and still be remembered for all that went wrong. After the H3 Podcast aired a short clip of the event on YouTube, featuring a fight that lasted just 119 seconds, Triller filed a copyright infringement […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":75301,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-torrent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=75300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75300\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/75301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=75300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=75300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=75300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}