🧅 Community Feature Submissions 🧅

Null đŸ„ Joshua Moon Megathread

Joshua Moon the owner of Kiwifarms
null 1.pngnull 2.png
 
Kiwismarms said:
There was a thread where someone mentioned that Erika was an evil, bad egg and that Candace's research had uncovered some crazy shit. It had.

The thread went into meltdown and defended Erika, while demonising Candace, saying Erika is pure and true and would never do anything like that.

I used to think the farmers were glowies and paid shills but i'm more and more believing that they're retarded and can't have a thought of their own unless a higher power says they can.

They're NPC's.
Click to expand...
Might write more on that skiffle later, but theres this
https://twitter.com/x/status/2021571226049643007
speakin of skiffles,
https://twitter.com/x/status/2022016311107498075
https://twitter.com/x/status/2022014058795610239
https://twitter.com/x/status/2022025805153677774
https://twitter.com/x/status/2022032749608284658
https://twitter.com/x/status/2022027372724465893
 
ipreferpickles said:
View attachment 107563View attachment 107564View attachment 107565
The Epstein Files thread is saying that Erika Kirk was more than likely helping Epstein traffic children and that she was a honeypot for Charlie Kirk. I remember Twitter being filled with these kinds of discussions months ago so this is yet another example of Kiwi Farms being slow on the draw due to how censored the site culture is now.
Click to expand...
I'll use this post to once again bring up the idea of a Kiwi Farms in the wake of Democrats sweeping the midterms and what Null says and does in response. It took KF awhile but most of the forum is now on the same mindset as the leftists and right wingers on Twitter.

Keep in mind that the thing that made Null defend the idea of Trump raping kids was the fallout from Mamdani becoming New York City's mayor and Trump saying he thought Indians were smarter and worked harder than Americans. Imagine what he'll say if the party of the people who are sending him death threats on Twitter win. The USPG2 thread is the only place left still praising Trump, the rest of the forum thinks he's a child raping traitor (that Null has openly said he has no problem with as long as he gets rid of Indians).
 
Being fair here, the UK is has been cucked for some time now.

It's a shithole run by a feminist-leaning government that has been trying to impose their subjective morality on the rest of the world for some time now. The UK should serve as the canary in the coal mine on this is what happens when you let retarded moral panic politics dictate policy which will in turn make your country into a dystopian shithole.

The reason why the UK is the way it is is because their citizens voted to off-shore their parenting responsibilities to their government. A lot of retards in the UK don't want to be parents so a lot of them were dumb enough to surrender their rights away to their government in exchange for having the government babysit their retarded kids for them.

With freedom comes with individual responsibility and if you don't want to take personal responsibility then expect to have the government erode away your freedoms until you have nothing left because you want to be lazy.

There's a very good reason why Sloth is considered to be one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Lazy people are often the biggest contributors of bad shit happening and the citizens of the UK voted for politicians that will take away their freedoms because many retards in the UK are too lazy to take personal responsibility for their own actions anyway.
 
 
Kiwismarms said:
I like the new website design, the background colour for the posts and usernames is a little awful. Tone the backgrounds down a little and this would look like kinda swanky.
Click to expand...
1770941833632.png

or how about set the default site theme to this and never change it again? @The Crimson Fucker @Home @Onion Null hey, set the site's theme to test style's dark mode. it's the most pleasing one yet
 
Jimmy Hill said:
:story:
He can't even beat Greer in a lolsuit!
Click to expand...
He's once again misrepresenting what he did to Greer. He wasn't simply "being mean." Being mean isn't a crime.

thefrogninja said:
Josh says he'll take Greer all the way to the supreme court because "the decision was so bad it breaks SCOTUS case law" and fails to clarify what law. He goes on to misrepresent what the judge said, that "me publishing our email correspondence is demonstrating contributory copyright infringement."

Here is what the courts actually said:
The district court correctly concluded Mr. Greer “sufficiently alleged” direct copyright infringement by a third party.”

Mr. Greer’s complaint alleged copyright violations related to his book and music. Mr. Greer provided the registration numbers and effective dates for both. He included certificates from the United States Register of Copyrights. And Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms do not dispute these copyrights were validly registered and their certificates appropriately issued pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 408–410.

Recall, the Copyright Act grants copyright holders like Mr. Greer the generally exclusive rights “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies” and “to distribute copies . . . of the copyrighted work to the public . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (3). Usually, when a third party reproduces or distributes a copyrighted work without authorization, they infringe on the exclusive rights of a copyright holder under 17 U.S.C. § 501.

In his complaint, Mr. Greer alleged he discovered the book “had been illegally put onto Kiwi Farms” in January 2018. “Somebody,” he explained, “created a copy of [his] book and put it in a Google Drive that is accessible on Kiwi Farms.” The complaint also included allegations "[o]ther users on Kiwi Farms have created unauthorized audio recordings of” the book “and have put them on various sites.” Kiwi Farms, Mr. Greer continued, “has links to these audio recordings.” As to the song, Mr. Greer alleged he found an “MP3 of his song was . . . on Kiwi Farms” in April 2019. A Kiwi Farms user posted the song with the comment “Enjoy this repetitive turd.” Another user commented, “Upload it here so no one accidentally gives [Mr. Greer] money.” The complaint also alleged “Mr. Moon’s users spread Greer’s song across different sites.”

Based on the complaint, we conclude, like the district court, Mr. Greer plausibly alleged direct, third-party infringement of copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 501.10

- On appeal, Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms suggest the copyright infringement here may have been “for purposes such as criticism and/or comment” and is thus protected under the “fair use” limitation of 17 U.S.C. § 107. Appellees Br. at 33. The paragraph discussion identifies the four factors in 17 U.S.C. § 107 but fails to explain what those factors are or why they apply here. We do not address this passing mention of a novel issue. See Day v. SkyWest Airlines, 45 F.4th 1181, 1192 (10th Cir. 2022) (declining “to consider [a] newly raised, inadequately briefed, and analytically complex issue in the first instance on appeal”).

- In any case, Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms did not plead the affirmative defense of fair use, and, “[a]s a general rule, a defendant waives an affirmative defense by failing to plead it.” Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 1040 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing Bentley v. Cleveland Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 41 F.3d 600, 604 (10th Cir. 1994)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) (explaining “a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense”).

- Perhaps to get around the bar of waiver, Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms describe fair use as “more than an affirmative defense; the language of the statute makes it clear that fair use is not infringement at all.” Appellees Br. at 33 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 107). But we decline the invitation to transfigure fair use into an un-waivable defense. See Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 143 S. Ct. 1258, 1285 n.21 (2023) (explaining “fair use is an affirmative defense” and the party invoking it “bears the burden to justify its taking” of the protected work); id. at 1288 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (discussing a party’s invocation of “the affirmative defense of ‘fair use’ to a claim of copyright infringement”).

The district court also concluded Mr. Greer “sufficiently alleged” “the defendant knew of the direct infringement.” Here, too, we
agree.

Mr. Greer’s takedown notices complied with 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). A takedown notice under the DMCA needs to identify “the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed” and “the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity . . . .” 17 U.S.C.§ 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)–(iii). Here, Mr. Greer’s original email and DMCA notices identified the book and song protected by copyright, pointed to the locations on Kiwi Farms where these works were being copied and shared without authorization, and requested Mr. Moon, as site administrator, remove the infringing materials.

While Mr. Moon debated the merits and style of Mr. Greer’s takedown notices—claiming in emails the infringements were protected under fair use and mocking the use of a “template” for the DMCA request—the complaint sufficiently alleged that Mr. Moon knew of the alleged direct infringement.

For contributory liability to attach, the final Diversey prong requires a defendant to “cause” or “materially contribute to” third-parties’ direct infringement. Diversey, 738 F.3d at 1204. The Supreme Court has described “contributory infringers” as those who are “in a position to control the use of copyrighted works by others” and who “authorize[] the use without permission from the copyright owner.” Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 437. As applied here, Mr. Greer was required to plausibly allege Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms caused, materially contributed to, or authorized the direct infringement by Kiwi Farms users and other third parties of Mr. Greer’s book and song. We conclude he did so.

The district court correctly explained the Diversey factors and rightly identified the liberal pro se pleading standard. Nevertheless, it dismissed Mr. Greer’s contributory infringement claim after concluding, “[w]hat is missing is the Defendants’ intentionally causing, inducing, or materially contributing to the infringement.” “It is not enough,” the district court continued, “for a defendant to have merely ‘permitted’ the infringing material to remain on the website, without having ‘induc[ed] or encourage[ed]’ the initial infringement.” (citing Grokster, 545 U.S. at 930).

On appeal, Mr. Greer contends he “sufficiently pleaded factual allegations of inducement” and encouragement. Appellant Br. at 46–52. Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms reply they simply “allow[ed] an infringing use to exist on their website” and so cannot be “liable for the actions of [their] users, even if [they] knew about the alleged infringement.” Appellees Br. at 35.12

We discern no error in the district court’s explanation that contributory liability requires more than “merely ‘permitting’ the infringing material to remain on the website.” And we conclude Kiwi Farms and Mr. Moon accurately state the law when they argue “a website owner or operator must do something other than allow an infringing use to exist on their website.” Appellees Br. at 35.

But these general principles of law are of little help here, where the record shows—and Mr. Greer’s complaint plausibly alleged—far more than “a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement . . . .” Grokster, 545 U.S. at 939 n.12 (emphasis added

When Mr. Greer discovered the book had been copied and placed in a Google Drive on Kiwi Farms, he “sent Mr. Moon requests to have his book removed . . . .” Mr. Moon pointedly refused these requests. In fact, instead of honoring the requests, Mr. Moon posted his email exchange with Mr. Greer to Kiwi Farms, belittling Mr. Greer’s attempt to protect his copyrighted material without resort to litigation.

After the email request, Kiwi Farms users continued to upload audio recordings of Mr. Greer’s book, followed by digital copies of his song. When Mr. Greer discovered the song on Kiwi Farms, he sent Mr. Moon a takedown notice under the DMCA. Mr. Moon not only refused to follow the DMCA’s process for removal and protection of infringing copies, he “published [the] DMCA request onto [Kiwi Farms],” along with Mr. Greer’s “private contact information.” Mr. Moon then “emailed Greer . . . and derided him for using a template for his DMCA request” and confirmed “he would not be removing Greer’s copyrighted materials.” Following Mr. Moon’s mocking refusal to remove Mr. Greer’s book and his song, Kiwi Farms users “have continued to exploit Greer’s copyrighted material,” including two additional songs and a screenplay.

Construing the pro se complaint liberally and drawing all reasonable inferences in Mr. Greer’s favor, we find Mr. Moon’s alleged conduct to fit within our understanding of material contribution.13 Mr. Greer sent repeated requests to Mr. Moon, identifying the materials on which he held the copyright, as well as where and how his rights were being infringed. Mr. Moon not only expressly refused to remove the materials, he mockingly posted the correspondence to Kiwi Farms. Under the circumstances, this is not the passive behavior of one “merely permitting” infringing material to remain on his site. Rather, we conclude a reasonable inference from the facts alleged is that the reposting of the takedown notice, combined with the refusal to take down the infringing material, amounted to encouragement of Kiwi Farms users’ direct copyright infringement.

Mr. Greer’s complaint alleged Mr. Moon knew Kiwi Farms was an audience that had been infringing Mr. Greer’s copyrights and would happily continue to do so. Indeed, Kiwi Farms users had been uploading Mr. Greer’s copyrighted materials with the explicit goal of avoiding anyone “accidentally giv[ing] [Mr. Greer] money.” Further infringement followed—encouraged, and materially contributed to, by Mr. Moon. See Diversey, 738 F.3d at 1204. IV

We hold Mr. Greer has stated plausible claims of contributory copyright infringement against Mr. Moon and Kiwi Farms. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

In summary :
- Josh was asked repeatedly to take it down.
- Josh dared Greer to sue.
- Josh tried to use fair use as a defense without pleading it.
- Despite this "fair use" defense, users repeatedly state their goal of depriving Greer of money.

in a world where Josh wasn't such a spastic retard who likes to publicly taunt Greer and encourage users to harass him by posting his emails, literally daring Greer into suing him, maybe the courts would've bought his "fair use" defense.
Click to expand...
thefrogninja said:
Josh claims he will shut down The Last Bastion of Free Speechℱ if Russell Greer wins (which isn't certain) because he will be incapable of taking on all the legal battles which would only commence after he refuses to comply with legitimate DMCA requests.
View attachment 67506View attachment 67507View attachment 67508

Keep in mind that literally nothing will change whether he wins or loses. Josh chooses to engage in these pricey legal endeavors.
Click to expand...
thefrogninja said:
All Josh has to do is remove the content and personally apologize to Mr. Greer. It's really all he asked for. Greer didn't want to proverbially pants Josh in the court of law and make him look like a chump. Josh forced his hand. No one is forcing Josh to pay Hardin tens of thousands of dollars and using up the "war chest" he largely implied would be for going after Liz-Fong Jones.
Russell greer (1).png
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Constant
KF Gossip đŸ—ŁïžđŸŠ»đŸŒ Joshua Moon V. Everybody - CourtTV
2
Replies
39
Views
8K
ecto_chasm
ecto_chasm
Back
Top Bottom