Triller reportedly agreed to settle “Jake Paul” hacking claim, then returned money * TorrentFreak
Home > Lawsuits > Applications and sites >
In June, Triller filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube channel YourEXTRA for allegedly hacking the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight. According to court documents, the parties previously agreed to settle the claim and costs were paid, but Triller doubled down, returned the money and took legal action anyway. And that’s not the only settlement controversy in Triller’s cases.
Earlier this year, people who allegedly proposed or even watched the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren boxing match online without permission were brought to justice.
Copyright owner Triller filed a wave of lawsuits after the PPV fight aired, targeting various sites and their operators. This included a number of YouTube channels, including the H3 podcast, which is currently fighting citing fair use, a defense that Triller says is not available.
Although the main event of the Jake Paul map ends in just 119 seconds, Triller’s lawsuits are aimed at recovering damages for alleged copyright infringement of this segment. This is also the subject of a complaint filed in June against Arvin De La Santos, the alleged operator of the YouTube channel YourEXTRA.
In his lawsuit in California court, Triller sought compensation for copyright infringement and proxy copyright infringement (Triller says Santos profited from the fight) in an amount to be determined at trial. , plus $ 110,000 for each Federal Communications Act violation. Now it turns out that Triller was initially happy to settle the matter out of court, but it didn’t go as planned.
Fair use, Innocent violation, Dirty hands
This week, De La Santos officially responded to Triller’s complaint and, as is often the case with such responses, the YouTuber broadly denies most of Triller’s claims.
De La Santos’ response cites the doctrine of fair use as an affirmative defense. No details are detailed at this point and given that the nature of the original video is currently unclear, it is difficult to assess whether the defense will hold up in the future.
The “innocent offense” is presented as another affirmative defense, with a note stating that if the actions of the defendant are found to be “improper” (which is disputed by the defense) then any offense was bona fide and unintentional.
What is more immediately interesting is the claim that the dispute could have been settled before it even started, had Triller kept his word.
Triller Refusal to Honor Settlement
After Jake Paul’s fight aired in April, Triller launched an amnesty campaign for people who watched the fight online without paying. The company said up to two million people could pay settlement fees to avoid legal action.
It is not clear if this campaign has paid off, but according to De La Santos’ response, the settlement of Triller’s claims in exchange for the company failing to file a complaint did not go through. as expected. YouTuber’s attorney said Triller comes to court with “dirty hands” after acting in bad faith over a pre-trial settlement agreement.
“The defendant was prompted to settle the alleged offense instead of having to go to court. The defendant agreed to sign the plaintiff’s settlement agreement and paid the required fees that accompanied a claim release, ”the record reads.
“Subsequently, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit and reimbursed the settlement costs (without interest) and is now seeking to recover the damages and attorney fees to which they are not entitled. This is a deceptive act and practice under California law, ”he continued, adding,“ The parties have already agreed to and resolved this dispute, which the plaintiff has now refused to honor. “
The defendant seeks a judgment
In conclusion, De La Santos asks the court to ensure that Triller “takes nothing from his complaint”, including legal or fair redress. He asks that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice (can no longer be filed) and that the judgment be rendered in his favor.
The YouTuber is also demanding his costs and attorneys’ fees incurred so far or a jury trial, if necessary.
Finally, in Triller’s ongoing lawsuit against the H3 podcast that alleges piracy of the same event, there appear to be settlement controversies of a different kind.
The H3 podcast reports that in an effort to end this dispute quickly and amicably, he offered to pay Triller $ 25,000. This offer was reportedly rejected with Triller countering with a much larger amount of $ 900,000. He also wanted the H3 podcast to publish the statement below, which at the time would have served as a propaganda tool to ensure that people watching the event illegally would settle down with Triller.
The H3 podcast declined and the case is now in full swing with an ongoing war over the detailed aspects of what is – and what isn’t – fair dealing.
De La Santos / YourEXTRA’s response to Triller’s complaint can be found here (pdf)