On June 3, 2025, Christopher “Denver Meto Audits” Cordova filed a lawsuit against the YouTuber known as Frauditor Troll, who he believes is named “Jonathan Huneault,” in the Northern District Court of California.
Cordova is represented by attorney Randall S. Newman, who lists a New York address in the lawsuit but is licensed in both New York and California. Newman has since started a YouTube presence and has appeared on a couple of Cordova’s live streams defending the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is filed in the Northern District of California as that’s where YouTube’s user agreement says all lawsuits involving the service must be filed.
We know that Jose “Chille” DeCastro once filed suit against Kate Peter, Josh Abrams, YouTube, YouTube workers, YouTube creators and everything else under the sun in Massachusetts. He shouldn’t have due to the same agreement he signed with YouTube by using their service. YouTube fought him over it, and eventually that case was dismissed because he’s DeCastro and never got around to actually sating what YouTube did wrong to be sued.
Attorney Newman also has the same listed address as Frauditor Troll on the lawsuit but specified a specific suite number. They use the same service in New York to provide a business address. Frauditor Troll, for whatever reason, chose not to list his suite number in the counterclaim he filed when he was notified of the YouTube copyright claim by Cordova.
Still with us?
The original video, “ANOTHER CHAD EXPOSED!!! Worthless Denver Cops….ASSAULTED!!!” went up on Cordova’s channel back on March 16, 2022. According to the complaint, it’s done around 66,000 views since creation.
Frauditor Troll did a reaction video on December 2, 2022, entitled “Frauditor DMA Gets Confronted by Angry Citizen (Hilarious).” According to the complaint, the video did 75,000 views or so in its lifetime. It’s currently unavailable.
Cordova put in a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint against the video on YouTube in early June of 2023. Troll counterclaimed on June 6, 2023. As part of his counterclaim, Troll provided the New York address, said his name was “Jonathan Huneault” and agreed to be served under that name at that address should Cordova sue him.
Because Cordova didn’t sue Troll in YouTube’s set time limit for the dispute, Troll’s video was restored, and Troll claimed it was a victory.
Cordova quietly regrouped.
A video posted to YouTube is subject to YouTube’s rules and regulations. However, when YouTube makes a ruling, such as siding with someone because a lawsuit wasn’t filed in a predetermined time limit, it does not strip the work of legal protection, or the copyright holder gives up the right to take future action to protect their work.
Cordova, like any creator, holds the copyright to their work when the work is created but he must register it to take legal action on copyright grounds.
In order to protect the copyright in the United States, Cordova needed to pay to register the copyright with the United States Copyright Office. It’s roughly $65.00 to protect a specific work and takes a while to get through the system.
Cordova started the registration process on February 6, 2024, and eventually the process completed, giving Cordova the opportunity to move forward in the court system to protect his copyright.
He did so, by filing the lawsuit against Troll on June 3, 2025.
And that’s when things got weird.
Christopher Cordova is a controversial figure. His personality is off-putting. His views on defending the display of public display of pornography, his views on women, his dancing skills, his brashness and his sheer upsetting quality that makes some people want to smack him just by looking at him… mean nothing.
He still holds the registered copyright on his work and has the legal ability to defend his work.
Frauditor Troll portrays himself as a family man. In that portrayal, he’s always standing up for himself as a hero of the people against the people who want to take down his business and expose the real identities of himself and his family. While, like Cordova, a lot of people are turned off by his personality, he has a huge fan base and people who will more than likely donate tons of money in his defense… and none of it matters.
The question before the court is whether or not Troll violated Cordova’s copyright when he used Cordova’s video.
The lawsuit is a claim against Troll and since it’s a defense of Cordova’s work, there’s a lot of harsh and inflammatory words towards the so-called anti-auditor community and has got everyone on that side of things rattled. That’s what it’s supposed to do.
If Frauditor Troll is successfully served, his reply will provide a defense against the no-good mean and dirty copyright holder and explain why what he did was perfectly legal. It’ll upset people in the auditing community. That’s what it’s supposed to do.
There’s a lot of fear in the supposed anti-auditing community right now because the lawsuit is seeking to define the limits of something called the Fair Use doctrine. According to Google’s AI overview, the Fair Use doctrine is not law, it’s a limitation to copyright that gives creators the right the ability to use limited portions of another person’s work.
The fear is present right now because the fair use doctrine is being challenged, and again, while the fear is overblown, at some level it is justified. The lawsuit might serve as a template for other creators to register their work and take similar action against those who produce reaction videos.
However, the fair use doctrine has always been applied on a case-by-case basis. The lawsuit is not going to change this, despite the bluster contained within the initial complaint.
The complaint is seeking action on one video, against one creator. While it may scare people and it may eventually force changes to YouTube policy, the time and expense involved in the current system will prevent mass overkill of lawsuits and the end of reaction videos.
That said, there are already limits on making reaction videos using footage from big Hollywood production studios who produce movies, video games, television shows and other media. However, there’s still a thriving reaction community on YouTube despite the limitations presented by the corporations who vigorously defend their works.
Reaction videos will still exist, but those who create them must be smarter about the use of the original content. There are limits, and finding those limits and a way to fill the magic eight minutes of content to hit mid-roll advertising will be a challenge to those who want to make a living making reaction videos.
We leave you with another case that isn’t getting as much attention.
Recently, Team Skeptic, a widely popular figure in the community that reacts to auditors, sovereign citizens, so-called “Karens” and the like has had to take action against other creators on YouTube.
His videos have been basically copied by AI channels and used as original works by those channels. Skeptic has been hailed as a hero in his community for taking action against the copying of his work and for actively working to protect his work even if it means having entire YouTube channels taken down.
The difference between Skeptic and Cordova? One has a more punchable face than the other? Nope. In the eyes of YouTube, there shouldn’t be.
Cordova may be seen as insufferable, his close relationship with his mother may be strange to some, his views of public display on pornography and weird choice in facial fur may leave some scratching their heads. He might not be the brightest or most handsome guy, his criminal record, his lifestyle choices and weird dance videos may be in question, but, again, none of it matters. He has the right to protect his work.
In the end, the court will have to decide whether or not Troll took too much of his work. The lawyers will have the final say and creators will go on creating, with new guidelines in place to make sure everyone plays nice.
The increased exposure for Cordova’s causes did nothing to help his on-going crowd sourcing campaign, which remains at $905.00 out of a $20,000.00 goal for the third straight month.
As a whole, the market reflected Cordova’s efforts for Monday as no winner was crowned, and no donations were made to any of the campaigns we cover.
We will continue to provide updates on DMA vs. Troll as we receive them.
Oh stop it!
This is killing me.
First, i had to spank Merb over his hatred of the anti frauditors and now I get to teach a copyright lawyer, copyright law. Are all lawyers this incredible bad? Did they skip school the day they taught law?
Just one comment here…
“…Over 27 minutes…”
He wrote that to impress who? The judge? His client? Maybe he thought if he used a big number he could get laid over his much smaller … err number?
Seriously, copyright law does not care about the time. It has to do with the percentage of the total time, that is copyrightable.
That is a big sentence, so for the so called lawyers, let me unpack it.
If I only took a minute of your video, whats a little minute right? Well if the work is 70 seconds you took a lot.
So the so called lawyer is saying what was stolen was over 50% of the video. Aha now we are seeing the theft. You cannot take over half the video… or can you?
If you have a 10 min video and I use it all in my video i have stolen your copyright. Maybe, but if the whole 10 mins was in a three hour video? It might be seen as substantial changes and thus allowed under copyright law.
Or…
here where it get fun.
or the lawyer is lying in his presentation. Oh wait, as a lawyer you can alway tell when they are lying. their mouth is moving…
So that big 27 min. (Notem i need to change the font so it is like 8 times the size of the other letters just so everyone can see how victimized he is…)
This is so in need of penises jokes…
So that assertion of 27 minutes? Heck, lets go wild and say it was 300 or better 3 000 000 minutes. Heck into the billions. You can get a sovereign citizen lawyer but that does not make this legal. Did chilli help write this? The amount of time does not matter. You have to show that a substantial portion of the copyrightable material was stolen…
Opps.
Sorry, criminal acts, no matter how deluded and no matter who the lawyer is, are NOT copyrightable. So DMA having gone to the big house, the slammer, don’t drop the soap, unless you are interested… All of his videos that he is breaking the law, cannot be copyrighted. So how much of that 27 minutes can he copy right again?
How about none. His confrontation with the police is his engaging in trespassing harassment and fighting words. The passerby, is also being assaulted by DMA and his verbal abuse.
I can hear it now, the calls for proof, you have to prove this.
Heck yes, something the lawyers having failed to do…
How about we use DMA and his mouth. He has always said words to the effect he is out to push the limits of the 1st amendment. ie, to break the law.
Just for ships and giggles. You now have to prove damages. By someone taking that video and using it, they cost me money. That is the basis of the claim. Sounds marvelous. I love it. except…
DMA channel goes about say 1/10 the viewership that the Frauditor troll does. You now have to show overlap. People who would have watched DMA but won’t because they watched FT?
Good luck with that. And for the lawyers, you cannot just assume this.
In the unlikely event that DMA won, he would still walk away with nothing.
Oh and just to say, case law is against him on this. But at this point we are so far from reality that something as pesky as case law is hardly relevant.
LOL
Okay, i have to mention this, I do… you will see why.
His name is Frauditor Troll
get it…
he is a troll
he is acting with no serious intent. He is not claimed to be a scholar studying the comings of 1st amendment video rakers. He’s a fxuking troll.
You just got trolled. He made you look stupid. Okay, cause you are stupid, evidence? This lawsuit?
LOL
Okay
one last thought…
Merb is firmly on the side of the plaintiff and is saying all sorts of bad words about a pile of anti frauditors channels.
His argument goes
He is a lawyer, but he does not know copyright law.
He wants to accept what he is saying cause he has the voice of authority being that he a lawyer
But this is not a legal opinion.
Lawyer, not law, lawyer but not legal
Watching the sharp turns he does, is making me dizzy.
Last comment, I said that before, so i am not only a troll, I am a lying troll, Poo I just outed myself as a lawyer equivalent; A lying troll.
But here goes, the last comment. Merb for all his righteousness. All his fury and all his demands that you must listen to him cause he is a first year family lawyer… He does the very same thing. He plays other peoples video in their entirety. He also then is guilty of this theft. Hypocrisy they name is merb.
So sorry for the long posting, not that I am ever sorry, I am a troll after all.
But this is just to much fun not to sit here and point out that world of YT is but a stage we are but players, full of sound and fury. Some of us are mere clowns playing the fool.
Okay I have a few more things to say.
1) the filing in Cali? Not needed and certainly not wanted. DMA is in Colorado, the other two parties are in New York/ If you were suing YT, it has to be in cali
So challenge jurisdiction
2) This is a slapp suit
A SLAPP suit, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, is a legal action intended to silence critics by burdening them with the costs of a legal defense, rather than to win a legitimate claim. These lawsuits often target individuals or organizations that speak out on issues of public interest, aiming to intimidate them into silence.
second motion.
3) That his lawyer did not know any of this, means HE should be sued for malpractice.
And now I know why the lawyer filed in california.
A similar case was filed in New York
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/3946577-Hosseinzadeh-Klein-ruling/
He filed in cali cause he knew he would lose in New York.
This is just another grift, a scam, a shakedown.
What else did you expect.
A problem that you touched on. Jurisdiction and venue.
Frauditor Troll lives in Canada. He publishes his videos through Youtube Canada. And, Youtube Canada is a legal Canadian entity that fulfills Canadian legal obligations. So if anyone wants to serve FT it will have to be in Canada. And the answer is NO, he can not just serve FT in Canada and force FT to travel to California to attend court. All FT need do is walk into a Canadian court and ask the judge to assume jurisdiction since the acts were done in Canada and the defendant is Canadian. And with Youtube Canada, that is the TOS – Canadian courts (I believe in Toronto) for all legal matters. (It works the same way in reverse if a Canadian wants to sue an American. He can not just sue in a Canadian court for what the American did in America using Canadian material.)
Now as a sidenote to this, and I am not sure how it works, for a foreign national to serve someone in Canada with a foreign court claim they need either permission from the Canadian Federal Government or from a local court. And they then become responsible for the service.
And then, Cordova has another problem with jurisdiction. He is claiming a New York NY address for FT. That is a problem for Cordova, Under 28 USC s/s 1400 (a) and s/s1391(b), jurisdiction is either the home of the defendant or where the act took place. Cordova is asking the court to assist in serving FT in New York. But the court has acknowledged that Cordova and the video in question are from Denver. And, since 1391 recognizes that the residence of the defendant is the proper venue, Cordova missed his filings by several thousand miles.
BUT, can Cordova even cross the border into Canada? He has a history, including assault, in his criminal record.
Then there is the fair use. It is both transformative and satirical. PLUS, Cordova has claimed his videos are journalism. News items can not be copyrighted. Ya, I’m not seeing his success on copyright protection. Plus, almost all the FT view came before the video was copyrighted. Cordova, if successful, would need to prove that there were a substantial number of views AFTER copyright in order to get any punitive damages. Otherwise, all he would get is the value of the views, which is a couple of cents per click, before he filed for copyright protection. Although I understand that Canadian copyright is similar to American in fair use, their anti-SLAPP is stronger than most American anti-SLAP laws.
Then there is that proverbial fly in the ointment for Cordova. He didn’t pay anyone to use their image. Cordova has never paid anyone to commercialize their image in any of his videos. And, unlike copyright, the “Right of Publicity” is a State right under the common law. But State cases may be heard in a Federal court. (Those affected would need to make their own case though, but their non-compensation is a fact for consideration.) That though is something a court would consider in deciding fair use.
So I have some time to spend here.
1) Jurisdiction. Oh boy, what a mess.
Merb says it rests in Cali due to some agreement with YT when there was a take-down notice issued.
DMA’s lawyer says, no, he has a section in the DMCA that allows for it.
Two lawyers, two opinions.
Both wrong, but what do you expect. Lawyers are statistically wrong 50%of the time anyway.
DMA lawyer has trouble on the clause he pointed to on a plain face reading. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Merb is pointing to a YT agreement that expired long ago. To explain, YT says you have to sue in a certain amount of time, 2 weeks I think. To avoid a lot of expenses finding out if your claimed lawsuit was real, after all it could be filed anywhere in the world, including Canada! YT say, nope, file it in Cali. You have a certain amount of time and then YT says we are out. We did our due diligence and bye. So does this bind you forever? Nope, just for the length of the contract. Which I think is a very short time.
So normally, you sue people in your home state. Their home state, if it is different. You usually do not go to a third state to file, where no one actually lives. As is the case here. DMA lives in Colorado, FT says he can be served in New York, incidentally at the same address as DMA’s lawyer. But the suit was filed in Cali? Where the lawyer for DMA lives? Hmm, that sounds strange.
Not really.
To file in Colorado requires so much paperwork. I do not know exactly what else, but they typically charge money, require proof of being a lawyer and a local lawyer to at least agree to help and vouch for you. The last part costs the most money.
To file in NY, where two of the three people are listed as having addresses, would not go so well. There is case law on the point that is totally against this suit. So no filing there. So might as well come up with some pretext and sue in his other state… other state? Yes, DMA’s lawyer is licensed to practise in NY and Cali. Since he won’t get another lawyer to file in Colorado, case law is against him in NY, by all means let’s file in Cali.
But this get better, in order to file in Cali, DMA’s lawyer says, the address in NY is deficient not having a unit number. Not like the desk won’t sign for it, and not like they cannot find his name and put it in the right place. Nope, that address is deficient. Big mistake.
So, let’s say DMA wins, he won’t but let’s say. So, where do they collect. Not in Cali. So, then off to NY? Nope. You tossed that jurisdiction out already when It was a gift, a real gift.
Now, the lawyer claims that FT lives in Canada. I have no idea where he lives, it could be the moon for all I know. But let us assume he is right. With his Cali judgment in hand, he flies up to Canada and says, pay me. FT says nope. Take me to court. So for all that work in Cali? Gone. Start over and prove he owes you any money under Canadian copyright law. If you thought American law was fun, wait till you see what a pile of … poo, Canadian copyright law is.
But if he had left the NY address, FT could say sue me in Canada, they could drag him back to NY because that is the jurisdiction he agreed to. But then in comes NY precedents and out goes the case.
DMA can claim off the FT channel… Just like David Earl Warden did? Change the name, put it in his son’s name and collect the cash all over again, and DMA does not see a cent of it.
So these lawyers are going to be nominated for the hall of fame … on what not to do in the case of copyright law
Oh, I would note there is case law in NY that ruled against this sort of action, but YT will not let me post the name here. So you have to go to Jim Finches website to see my comments with it in… or read Merb’s email. I sent the case to him already.
Speak of Merb. Now, in order to show damages, you have to show a loss. That is, people would not watch DMA because they watched FT. Merb used a sport bar where two teams, have separate locations, Team A ate and drank while watching the game at Bar A. Team B ate and drank while watching the game at Bar B. There was nothing to stop team A from going to bar B etc. So clearly there can be overlap. Except he failed to follow up his own analogy. To wit, for people to watch both DMA and FT would be akin to a person to eating and drinking while watching the game at Bar A. Then they drive to bar B and watch the same game while eating and drinking?
That does not make sense. No one does that. Just like no one watches both DMA then FT over the same video.
His next line of defence is people only watch because they share the same opinion. Yet at the same time, he has to deal with sub parr retards who leave comments in his commentary that is all sub parr nonsense.
So which is it. We watch what we agree with, or we don’t? Could it be both?
Don’t tell Merb, reality is very scary to the young at heart as is his case!
See, in his haste to poison the well, he forgets that while I completely agree that I am a sub parr moron, does Merb really want to be seen getting his @$$ handed to him by a sub parr moron? It is one thing to get tossed by a legal genius, it is another to call the other guy a sub parr moron and then get your @$$ kicked all over Usenet.
Also, Merb has a low opinion of commentary that FT gives. So? Again commentary need not be judged worthy in so far as to be deemed commentary. Just like I can watch Merb’s video and leave a fart noise ever few seconds. And guess what? It would be considered commentary and also expanding the work itself. It may not smell so well, but it is still legally considered commentary.
You don’t have to like the law. You just have to know it.
So this lawsuit should get tossed for improper venue.
But what about failure to state a claim?
Now, Merb want it both ways. He is a lawyer but does not know copyright law. But he says he is right because, hey, he is the lawyer. Hmm… not sure if that follows. It is call circular reasoning. Running in a circle will get you dizzy. Explains why Merb sits down for most of his commentary.
In fact, I agree with Merb when he says he does not know copyright law. Nor does DMA’s lawyer.
WHAT?
How dare you say that.
Okay, I take it back.
They are both wonderful lawyers who know so much about copyright law that is hard to imagine that they don’t even know they failed to state a claim?
Who was their teacher? Merb have you been getting your law knowledge from chilli again?
DMA needs to state a cause of action. Some claim that he and his property were violated by FT.
As EVERYONE can see, well except me, but then I am a sub parr moron Usenet troll… The claim is FT used 27 minutes of DMA’s video. And that is true. He took 27 minutes… This is over 50% of the video published by DMA! This is clearly not fair use. Case closed. Send in the clowns…
Well how can you hold a clown show without clowns??
Okay, we all agree…
Well, we agree on the time but not the copyright
And thus I get to say, they don’t know copyright law. This is failure to state a claim. In your own words, you have failed to state anything except screaming out how little you understand copyright law.
Tell me you do not know copyright law without saying you do not know copyright law. And published for all to see it in a court filing.
Let’s unpack. I will go over this slowly. Teaching law to lawyers, copyright law to copyright lawyers. You have to speak slowly, otherwise it goes over their heads, and they start to bang on the table and insult people.
When the law is on your side, argue the law
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts!
When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, bang on the table and insult people.
Anyone care to tell me what Merb is doing in his videos of late?
Your claim has to be based on copyright time, not total time. How much of that 27 minutes is copyrightable? Why all of it they say in their court claim! Oh, really? So if I take my camera and walk down the same street as DMA did, stand in the same spot, watch the same patch of sidewalk, I can be sued by him for violating his copyright?
Nope
Copyright has to be unique. Not just his camera. There is nothing unique in a video of a random street or buildings.
What about what the cop says?
Nope. I can find the same cop and record him saying those exact words, and DMA cannot sue me or the cop for copyright.
Word for word. Gesture for Gesture on the exact same spot. Not copyrightable. It is not unique.
DMA does not own the cop, nor his words, nor his actions on that day. He cannot then turn around and copyright what he said and did. Otherwise, imagine this. The cop is recorded by another first amendment auditor saying the exact same thing. Can DMA sue them both for copyright infringement?
Sorry no.
Good luck on making that claim. Get chilli to write the case for you! It might be as much fun as this claim is.
Perky thing, being that the cop is part of government, you cannot copyright anything in government. Anything he says while on the job is not subject to copyright. As such, how many minutes of that video was on the cop talking or trying to while being rudely interrupted by DMA?
Hint, you have to remove that from your copyright claim.
Ops. You did not.
What about the other guy? So sorry, say I can find him and get him to say the same thing in the same spot. I still cannot be sued because DMA cannot copyright another person words or actions. He cannot claim this to be a unique work that he alone has created. Certainly not as the passerby is not owned by the lawyer, DMA or the court. He is a free man and is not subject to copyright by DMA.
So now, all that time spent on other people? Sorry, you included that time in the claim and… busted. Failure to state a claim.
That 27 minutes is a LOT less now.
So your statement of claims is voided by being false. ON ITS FACE.
Thanks for playing!
So, boys and girls, how much is left of that 27 minutes? Ops, that would be the copyright material, unstated in the lawsuit, the copyright material that was stolen and that is where the claim should have been. Is it a minute, 5 minutes? It is certainly not 27 minutes. In this, the filing is deficient on its face and toss-able for failure to state a claim.
How much time remains? Get the stop watch, and count it out. It’s under 10% of the nearly 1-hour video? I.e. fair use.
It is not even in the claim. So that statement of claims is… poo.
Worse, he was as much saying so in his own filing.
Boom baby, failure to state a claim.
But wait, it gets better…
By that, I mean worse!
Well worse for DMA, his lawyer and Merb.
Better for me.
For me, it just gets funnier
But then I am just trolling away, making these legal geniuses look inadequate? Shall we say?
Back to the claim
You also cannot copyright a crime in progress. DMA, bless his criminal heart, has been served more than a few meals of prison meatloaf in his day. So, he understands that his efforts have been seen as violating the law. Ruled on by a court and even go to appeals and still he spent how much time in slammer? In this matter of copyright or lack of ability to copyright, a crime. There is no exception. You cannot trespass, harass, and record and say I copyrighted this! You cannot speak fighting words and expect to be able to copyright them. Even in Cali or on YT.
So that 27 minutes mark… oh wait, what is that sound? Flush.
So there it is. This is not legal advice, nor is this anything but the opinion of a sub parr moron Usenet troll but so much for this case!
Now imagine if a real copyright lawyer took the case and just how fast the toilet paper would come out?
Sadly, if you have read this far, sorry to be boring you Merb! But it is not over. Reality comes crashing in.
We have heard from DMA, but not FT. What will he do. He could answer or not. Since they won’t try to serve him in NY, they precluded that already. He may let them spin their wheels in Cali and get an unenforceable judgment that they have to redo in Canada all over again.
Here is the thing, If they had not tossed his address in NY, they could sue him in NY. When, if he lives in Canada, he says sue me in Canada, they drag him back to NY cause that is where FT said to sue him. But with this petition, DMA’s lawyer toss jurisdiction out for NY.
FT could get Barney the bus stop lawyer who will take any case for $9.99
You get what you pay for
Or he could get a real lawyer, and fight this case. There are so many mistakes in here that MERB thinks this is a solid case? More like it stinks of something solid, but I usually flush mine. I don’t file it in court. To each their own. I am just an admitted sub parr moron who is trolling both of these great lawyers of near legendary status! So imagine what would happen if FT got a good lawyer, not a great lawyer, just someone who knows copyright law…
Those two would be so overwhelmed it would not be funny.
In the end, I bust on both lawyers, because I am a troll, and they are clearly wrong in their understanding of copyright law. And it is really fun to wind Merb up and watch his ears turn red when he tries to taunt me. But unlike say a speeding ticket, where if you are doing 51 in a 50, you have broken the law, copyright is a lot more nebulas in character. A lot more nuanced and a lot more squashy.
DMA’s lawyer thinks that whole 27 minutes is in itself the whole basis for a copyright claim. It is not.
Merb just wants to bash people he does not like.
As for me, I just like being the smartest guy in the room… okay so it is a very easy room to do that in…
With respect.
“But if he had left the NY address, FT could say sue me in Canada, they could drag him back to NY because that is the jurisdiction he agreed to.”
Not quite. That NY address is between FT and Youtube. It means nothing to the courts. The courts will look to 28 USC § 1400(a) and § 1391(b) The defendant gets served where he lives or does his business. FT lives in Canada and operates through Youtube Canada. Because he is a Canadian (or at least lives in Canada) he is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. He can not be dragged anywhere. The same as if FT decided to sue Cordova in a Canadian court under Canadian law, he could not drag Cordova to Canada from Denver. (Although Denver might like the idea.)
Under 28 USC § 1391
(b)Venue in General.—A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
So under (b)(3) the only court with personal jurisdiction would be in Canada. AND, under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), if a civil lawsuit is filed in the wrong jurisdiction the district judge may dismiss the case or transfer it to the proper District. There is no US Federal Court in Canada so it can not be transferred and must be dismissed.
28 U.S. Code § 1406
(a)The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
* * *
– “So, boys and girls, how much is left of that 27 minutes? Ops, that would be the copyright material, unstated in the lawsuit, the copyright material that was stolen and that is where the claim should have been. Is it a minute, 5 minutes? It is certainly not 27 minutes. In this, the filing is deficient on its face and toss-able for failure to state a claim.”
You entirely missed where Cordova threatened a Federal Lawsuit and would own their qualified immunity. THAT is copyrightable as it is personal, creator content.
* * *
– “DMA, bless his criminal heart, has been served more than a few meals of prison meatloaf in his day.”
That is so much better than suggesting that Cordova knows why you save the little packet of ranch dressing from dinner.
Robert, that was the longest, most confidently wrong manifesto I’ve ever read outside a flat earth subreddit. It’s like you swallowed a Black’s Law Dictionary, choked on it halfway through, and then tried to cough up a legal opinion using only Reddit and fumes from Merb’s livestreams as oxygen.
Let’s unpack your brilliance, paragraph by flaming paragraph.
“The amount of time does not matter. You have to show that a substantial portion of the copyrightable material was stolen.”
Great. You just refuted yourself in the same breath. First you say time doesn’t matter. Then you say substantiality matters. And how do we measure substantiality? Wait for it… time, context, and creative elements. You’re not wrong that a 1-minute use can be infringing—but only when the quality and expressive value of what was taken matters. Which you’d know if you’d read Harper & Row instead of just watching 7th-tier YouTubers yell “FAIR USE!” like it’s a magic spell.
“Crimes aren’t copyrightable.”
Sweet Jesus. By that logic, no true crime documentary is protectable. Netflix better cancel half its lineup. News flash: what’s being filmed isn’t copyrighted—the recording itself is. The copyright protects the video, not the event.
So no, DMA doesn’t lose his copyright because someone in the footage was rude, arrested, or had the audacity to speak in public. That’s not how any of this works. It’s copyright law, not a morality test.
“You cannot copyright someone else’s words.”
Yes you can, if you’re the one who fixed it in a tangible medium. That’s literally the basis of every documentary, interview, and news report. DMA isn’t claiming to own the passerby—he owns the video capturing the interaction. Just like FT owns his commentary. That’s how this works, Einstein. You record it, you own the fixation. You don’t get a free pass just because “the cop said it.”
“Venue is wrong because everyone lives somewhere else.”
Yeah, we know. Thanks for reading the complaint. Now go reread the DMCA’s 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), where the defendant consents to jurisdiction in “any United States District Court for the judicial district in which the service address is located.” That would be… California. You’re welcome.
“This is a SLAPP suit!”
Congrats on knowing a buzzword. Sadly, this is a federal copyright case, and anti-SLAPP doesn’t apply to federal claims in the 9th Circuit (*hi, Kearney v. Foley & Lardner). You can scream “SLAPP!” all you want—it’s not going to slap back.
“DMA can’t prove damages.”
Ever heard of damages under the Copyright Act? I’m guessing not. When you use someone else’s work—especially when it makes up 87% of your own video—you don’t get to turn around and say “Where’s the proof I cost them money?” The law doesn’t require an accountant’s spreadsheet for every view. If FT is monetizing content he didn’t create, didn’t license, and didn’t transform? That’s called liability. Whether the court looks at lost revenue, infringer profits, or the sheer audacity of the theft—he’s still on the hook.
Copyright law wasn’t written to protect trolls. It was written to protect creators. Which is hilarious, because FT and his fanboys like you seem to think commentary is a free pass to commit wholesale appropriation, as long as they throw in a fart joke and a blurry zoom effect.
“This is a grift.”
Of course. Suing someone who uses 27 minutes of your video without permission is now a “grift.” Meanwhile, trolls run entire monetized channels built on unlicensed use of videos they mock—and that’s free speech?
What’s next, Robert? Parking in front of someone’s house, filming their kids, and uploading it with a fart soundtrack is “transformative scholarship”?
Listen, Bobbo: I don’t know what backwater law school rejected you, but please stop treating YouTube like it’s a substitute for an actual legal education. You have confused:
Being loud
With being correct
And being smug
With being educated
You’re not a lawyer. You’re barely a coherent commenter. But thanks for writing a multi-thousand-word ego dump that proves, once and for all, that you don’t understand copyright, venue, the DMCA, civil procedure, or the difference between a keyboard and a courtroom.
I’ll leave you with this:
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.”
Some are trolls. Some are lawyers.
And some just yell from the cheap seats because it’s the only place they’re allowed to sit.
Moron.
Warm regards,
The Unhinged Attorney
✍️👊💥
– ““You cannot copyright someone else’s words.”
Yes you can, if you’re the one who fixed it in a tangible medium. That’s literally the basis of every documentary, interview, and news report.”
Well, we have the “I Have a Dream” MLK speech. Yes, the family copyrighted the words. BUT, they could not copyright the news footage of the speech because (drum roll) news can not be copyrighted. Oh, what is that word they use, Uummm, there is two of them. … oh ya FAIR EFFEN USE. If you ignore the middle one it comes out to two words.
* * *
– ““Venue is wrong because everyone lives somewhere else.”
Yeah, we know. Thanks for reading the complaint. Now go reread the DMCA’s 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), where the defendant consents to jurisdiction in “any United States District Court for the judicial district in which the service address is located.” That would be… California. You’re welcome.”
Nope. § 512 is between FT and Youtube / Google / Alphabits or whatever they are calling themselves. Cordova did not name Youtube in the lawsuit and actually, probably can’t. Well, we know they can, but then Cordova would need to pay their legal costs and I understand that they use very top notch and expensive lawyers. I direct your attention to
28 U.S. Code § 1391.
(a) Applicability of Section.—Except as otherwise provided by law—
(1) this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions brought in district courts of the United States; and
(2) the proper venue for a civil action shall be determined without regard to whether the action is local or transitory in nature.
( Ed, dang, that (1) uses that imperative ‘SHALL’ )
(b) Venue in General.—A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
(c) Residency.—For all venue purposes—
(1) a natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled;
(2) an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question and, if a plaintiff, only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business;
As I pointed out elsewhere, FT lives in Canada. He is not subject to US jurisdiction. Under Canadian law FT is afforded the protection and jeopardy of Canadian jurisdiction. FT published his videos through Youtube Canada, a legal entity in Canada and separate from Youtube (USA). Under Youtube Canada TOS all demands for legal service must be brought in a Canadian court. I do not believe that Youtube (USA) has the authority under Canadian law to even ask Youtube Canada for his information. Otherwise Youtube Canada runs afoul of Canadian laws.
For a foreign court to serve a Canadian, they must either go through the Canadian Foreign Service department, OR, serve it on a Canadian court and get permission to serve the person. Both ways pretty well require the services of a Canadian lawyer. And, because FT is a Canadian, posted the video while living in Canada, and posted through Youtube Canada, all he needs to do is go into a Canadian court and assert jurisdiction. BANG ! Canada is now the legal venue. So where does that leave Cordova and his lawyer? Well, they can pursue this in Canada. As I understand, Canada’s copyright law is very similar to US copyright law. BUT, he will need to pay around $25,000 to $50,000 to a Canadian lawyer to take the case for something that will return <$250.
All Cordova can claim is the actual damages up until he applied for a copyright. That was 1.6 cents ($0.016) per view in 1922. He could claim for damages after he applied for copyright protection in 1924 AND he would need to show that FT knew he had applied for copyright protection. (Ya, that pesky Youtube "noninfringement decision might bite Cordova's butt.) How many views did the video get after Cordova applied for the copyright? Ya, somewhere between none and less than two.
* * *
– "“This is a SLAPP suit!”
Congrats on knowing a buzzword. Sadly, this is a federal copyright case, and anti-SLAPP doesn’t apply to federal claims in the 9th Circuit (*hi, Kearney v. Foley & Lardner). You can scream “SLAPP!” all you want—it’s not going to slap back."
As I understand, Canadian anti-SLAPP laws are stricter than American laws. Considering that Cordova never paid any of the innocent people appearing in his videos. Not even the ones that did not want to be videoed. Ya, that does matter. Cordova does not and can not own their rights. Yes, he may own his creation, BUT he may not profit off of others without their permission.
As an FYI, Cordova's lawyer should understand this. He represented a dude named Todd Duffy that tried to sue a movie because they used his image in some promotional material. What was his claim? The "Right to Publicity". Duffy owns his character and was paid by the movie company for those rights. Cordova hasn't paid anyone for those rights and thus, wont be able to profit off of those people. Can you imagine, losing a case with a one page contract because you didn't even read it. Cordova's lawyer still thinks he can serve FT in the US and California is the venue. (It isn't)
And if Cordova want's FT's butt, he will need to sue in Canada. And Cordova might not get across the border with his violence record and his lawyer will be disappointed that Canadian ambulances go faster than American ambulances. Do you really think Cordova's lawyer, Randall Newman's finances will allow him to sue for what, $250 and pay a Canadian lawyer $25,000 on general principle? (He won't win. There is that fair use thing.)
* * *
You should read 17 U.S.C. Section 512. You have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to jurisdiction and venue and I would bet $1k that you never ever saw the Frauditor Video at issue in this case so your take on fair use is stupid.
And, you are stupid enough to listen to D’Arcy.