Join The Fan Fiction Deep State And Watch This Latest Video That Addison Cain Really Doesn't Want You To See
from the legal-bully dept
Last month we had a post about wolf kink erotica writer Addison Cain (pen name) and her abuse of the DMCA which we had first written about in May, but which came up again after YouTuber Lindsay Ellis did a fantastic video analyzing the entire case. If you haven't seen that, here it is:
The reason we wrote about it again last month was that after Ellis posted her video, a lawyer named Tynia Watson had sent Ellis what appeared to be one of the stupidest legal threat letters I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot). Ellis only revealed a brief portion of that letter, but that was enough.
Now, in a new video, Ellis describes all of the nonsense that has happened since then, which goes super deep in the weeds on a variety of things. You can watch the whole thing here:
I'm not going to go over everything in the video because (1) you should watch it and (2) a bunch of it is super crazy and I don't even want to start to think about figuring out how to explain all of the background necessary. Instead, I'm just going to focus on the legal threats of Tynia Watson, who is, somehow, an actual lawyer, meaning she should fucking know better than to send such bullshit conspiracy-theory laden emails to basically everyone.
As we noted, the original letter from Watson seemed to be claiming both copyright infringement (on the basis that Ellis quoted a few short segments in an obviously fair use manner) and "numerous false statements" that I could see no evidence of. In fact, Ellis' reporting got me to go back and read through a whole bunch of documents in one of the lawsuits that the video was about, and discover how Cain had insisted, repeatedly, that it was her publisher who filed the lawsuits and she had nothing to do with it -- though in discovery in a different lawsuit, it came out that Cain was in the driver's seat through much of this, telling her publisher to send the (bogus) DMCA notices, and then later telling her publisher how she was going to "hide behind" them. In fact, Cain got dismissed from one of the lawsuits on the basis that the DMCA notices were all sent by the publisher. That's kind of a big deal.
Anyway, Watson then started sending more threat letters, including to Patreon and YouTube, to try to get the video taken down. Any real copyright (or defamation) lawyer should be embarrassed that Watson is also a lawyer, because these letters are... bad. You can see them in the video (so I don't have full copies to post here, as I normally would). First, Watson sent a takedown to... Patreon. Even though the video was hosted at YouTube. Ellis, like many YouTubers and podcasters, uses Patreon as a revenue source, but there's little reason to target them for copyright infringement other than being vindictive. Patreon told Ellis to go through the standard counternotice process, but did ask her to remove the link to YouTube from her Patreon post for the requisite 10 days under the DMCA to retain its safe harbors (and then relink the video). But then it also told Ellis that if this did go to court, it would totally back her up (FWIW, Patreon has some great people who work on this stuff, so I'm not surprised to see them stand behind their user like that).
Then, YouTube notified her that it had also received a takedown from Cain. YouTube went even further and said that it didn't see how the video was infringing at all, and had rejected the takedown demand. Ellis seems surprised about this and says that she's never heard of YouTube not complying with a takedown, but it actually happens reasonably often. Despite all the mess with things like ContentID, YouTube's legal team does take fair use seriously, and especially on high profile videos is pretty quick to push back on censorial thuggish bullshit takedowns.
Ellis then has a fun narration of the takedown letter that Cain sent to YouTube, which the company passed on. It's... stunningly stupid. Here's a key clip that I want to post here just to make sure that everyone can see just how incredibly stupid it is:
The work infringed is not "fair use". My book is not public domain; it is a creative work, not a text book. The poster reads my books to degrade my work. This is not fair use of a copyrighted work, nor was this video a review of my work. It was a personal attack framed around two lawsuits filed against me personally in which the poster did not like the outcomes....
[....] The power significantly transformed my original work, both by altering the work and by mocking it for the poster's financial gain via YouTube and Patreon. Monetizing the video does not make this fair use.
Yeah. So. About all that. Fair use applies to copyright-covered works. If it were public domain, you wouldn't need fair use because... it's not covered by copyright. So that opening line is just... weird. Second, who cares if it's not a text book? Fair use is not limited to text books. Whether it's a personal attack (it wasn't) is completely meaningless to a fair use analysis as well.
But it's that second highlighted paragraph that is truly stunning. Because a key point for a court determining whether or not something is fair use is, literally, was it "transformative." And here you have Cain saying it's not fair use because it was transformative. She even used the word transformative. Also, the fact that the video is monetized is also (mostly) meaningless. Yes, "commercial" works sometimes are considered to have a higher standard when it comes to fair use, but not by much, and tons and tons of stuff is still done commercially and is fair use. The main way in which the commercial nature comes into play is if the work is somehow competing in the marketplace with the original. And in no world is Ellis' video competing with Cain's books.
From there, the takedown demand goes off on a rant about people being mean to her on the internet and then claims that the video is defamatory. And, like, that sucks, and people shouldn't be mean to Cain (or anyone) on the internet, and shouldn't threaten people, but that's got absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not something can or should be taken down via a copyright claim. It's pure performative emotional bullshit victim-playing. Also, the video is not defamatory.
The video then goes into a bunch of other stuff which is fascinating and insane and bad, but we'll pick it up again later on in the story, after EFF steps in to defend Ellis and sends Cain's lawyer a letter basically saying "c'mon, you know this is nonsense." Rather than just walking away, the way a smart lawyer would, Cain's lawyer doubles down in a manner I've only rarely seen before. Again, I don't have the whole letter, but the parts that Ellis highlights are... whoo boy. A journey.
It argues that EFF is part of some giant conspiracy with Ellis and the Organization for Transformative Works (OTW). OTW is a great organization. We've written about them a few times, and once even teamed up with them on an amicus brief. But they're not EFF. They've worked with EFF on some things where their work has overlapped, but... so what? Watson/Cain seem to think there's a big conspiracy:
As your organization, the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), is a close partner with the Organization for Transformative Works ("OTW"), and was clearly working with Lindsay Ellis on the Video, the EFF is aware that for over two years, my client, Addison Cain ("Ms. Cain") has been involved in two lawsuits in which the plaintiff (Quill Ink Books, Limited) was supported by the OTW...
Huh? What does that have to do with anything beyond attempting to tie red strings to cork boards. It gets worse.
Regardless of what really happened during the two lawsuits, it is clear that you and your client were intent on spreading false allegations and outright lies about my client and the litigation in the monetized Video, which the EFF received a portion of the proceeds to produce.
Ellis did mention EFF at the end of her first video because that's a nice thing to do when talking about bogus copyright abuse to try to silence critics, but it had nothing to do with the video. This is just random nonsense conspiracy theory claptrap.
Ms. Ellis could have easily condensed use of Ms. Cain's book into a few paragraphs for illustration instead of reading from the book for over two minutes.
Er. She did condense it down to just a few illustrative paragraphs. As is kinda obvious from the fact that in her nearly hour long video, there was just about two minutes of text from the book. It's bizarre to claim that Ellis should have done... what she actually did. And then complain about it.
It gets more and more unhinged, tying Zoey Ellis (the pen name of the plaintiff in the original case, who is no relation to Lindsay Ellis and has nothing to do with the creation of any of these videos) to all of this.
Zoey Ellis and her attorneys utilized numerous methods to obtain their objective to smear Ms. Cain's name, but one common denominator has been their utilization of the OTW, of which EFF is a close partner.....
[....]
Though you failed to directly address our allegations of defamation in your letter, it is our opinion that defamation exists, and because the EFF worked in collusion with Lindsey Ellis to create the monetized Video, the EFF is also culpable for the copyright infringement and the defamation.
Just to be clear, again, though it shouldn't need to be said: the EFF did not work with Lindsay Ellis on the video (nor did OTW, which is a totally separate organization from EFF). The video is neither defamatory nor infringing. And, even if it were (which it's not), there is no way that EFF would be "also culpable" of either the infringement or the defamation (which, again, does not exist). We're in pure crazy town.
And we're not leaving crazy town any time soon:
The tie between OTW and the EFF and the history of abuse my client faced the last two years, makes the use of Lindsay Ellis, a YouTube/Patreon personality with public sway, suspicious in the least, particularly where you assisted in the creation of a monetized Video where both the EFF and Linsday Ellis could profit off copyright infringement and defamation.
Again, none of that makes any sense, either from a "this is how facts work" standpoint or a "this is how law works" standpoint. If an actual lawyer wrote this, it is truly embarrassing. It goes on and on and on in this fashion and those are only the clips that Ellis shares. The full letter was apparently 40 pages. I'm flabbergasted.
As Ellis points out, Cain/Watson are effectively arguing that there's a vast fan fiction deep state working together to bring down... this one random author of wolf kink erotica. Because that makes sense.
Here's a simple lesson that Cain and Watson might want to learn: after people call you out on bullshit DMCA notices... stop digging. Don't file more. Don't claim defamation. Don't draw stupidly obviously bullshit conspiracy theories on the cork board with red yarn. Admit you fucked up, don't do it again, and move on with your life writing terrible wolf kink erotica fiction.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: addison cain, commentary, copyright, deep state, defamation, dmca, fair use, fan fiction, fan fiction deep state, lindsay ellis, omegaverse, transformative, tynia watson, wolf kink erotica
Companies: eff, organization for transformative works, otw, patreon, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A match made it batshit insane heaven
Well, it seem that both lawyer and client have decided that the best defense is a deranged, paranoid conspiracy laden offense.
If Addison Cain really is concerned about her reputation and people saying mean things about her then she should probably stop talking and reign in whatever nut lawyer she's got there, because all she's doing is showing that she's willing to abuse the law to squash criticism(and lie about it in the process) and that when backed into a corner she'll spin wild conspiracy theories about how everyone is out to get her rather than accept that she was wrong, neither of which are doing her any favors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I laughed and laughed and laughed when that video covered the EFF/OTW conspiracy theory.
As far as I can tell the lawyer seemed to be saying that something only counts as perjury if a court has deemed it such, and thus Cain didn't commit perjury. (So, y'know, more bullshit)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that is her argument then it seems to have shot another of her own arguments in the back, as 'it only counts if a judge rules it as such' would also apply to her claims of defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If that is her argument then it seems to have shot another of her own arguments in the back..."
It's almost as if she's taking legal advice from our very own Baghdad Bob, then. Shooting his own arguments in the back is an almost unique tell of his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, she is a fiction writer after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does Section 230 not override the DMCA in validating platform immunity to suspected legal violations user content uploads? It protects them from everything else. Why not copyright claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because The Holy Copyright, Upon Which Society Itself Rests has an unfortunate tendency to turn brains off when it comes to lawyers, judges and politicians, and as such it was felt that it needed to be treated extra special when it came to 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How does Section 230 not override the DMCA in validating platform immunity to suspected legal violations user content uploads? It protects them from everything else. Why not copyright claims?
Because (e)(2) of Section 230 says it has no impact on intellectual property law. Section 230 doesn't matter for copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Two things:
a. Thank you. I am now more informed.
b. primal screaming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A one-person ANOMALY so gets major rant.
A thousand anomalies mean nothing to the basis of copyright.
New readers (IF were any) should know that ten years ago Masnick claimed to "support copyright", or more accurately, that was what we were informed of. You will not find ANY support for copyright from Maz or fanboys last five years: they openly want it destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When that one person is indicative of both how a vast number of successful content creators view copyright law and how the copyright system can be used to legitimately censor the speech of others? They’re not an anomaly — they’re a validation of everyone who views copyright as a threat to free speech. You not seeing copyright as a form of information control, or the same corporations you love to decry as “enemies of speech” exercising their control over copyrights they hold as trying to commit the kind of censorship of which you accuse social media services of committing when they merely kick someone out, is a “you” problem. You might want to consider doing something about it some time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A one-person ANOMALY so gets major rant.
Pointing out attempted abuse of copyright law by Cain and Watson could arguably be considered"supporting copyright."
But your rant sounds as unhinged as Cain and Watson, so I don't expect you to see reason.
Continue frothing at the mouth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’ll have to forgive Brainy Smurf there; he’s still trying to figure out how he can decry corporations as having no ability to exercise any legal rights and support corporations using copyright to censor speech. Cognitive dissonance of that magnitude takes a toll, y’know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A one-person ANOMALY so gets major rant.
Once again, you can't tell the difference between abolition and reform.
Also, Masnick's position was never that he "supported copyright", he supported whatever the evidence provided dictated we should go.
You're bad at trolling, even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This story alone justifies my monthly contribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a lawyer somewhere who could sue for defamation on behalf of wolves everywhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean, PETA somehow managed to find lawyers that would do so for a monkey, so it's not impossible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh great, now I have to remember all that monkey business again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I could probably find the link to the lyrical poetry battle it inspired if that would help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly the lawyer's response sounds less like a lawyer and more like an angry wolfkink fan leaving a nasty comment on a YouTube video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smarter people than Addison Cain have done far dumber things with copyright claims…but not by much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
streisand effect
Did you not notice the Streisand (effect) picture in the background, Mike? https://youtu.be/K3v5wFMQRqs?t=1162
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: streisand effect
I'm definitely sure Mike has noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: streisand effect
It's even more explicit (and funnier) at https://youtu.be/K3v5wFMQRqs?t=1119
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, the entire intro for the video uses Streisand images, so it’s there from the get-go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: streisand effect
Oh, I noticed. But I figured that if I highlighted it, it would just give it more attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on, the conspiracy should be obvious to anyone, I mean why would two organisations which views on a topic align, come to the same conclusion and do similar actions, even more proposterous would it be to think suchs organisations could work together outside of a conspiracy with a goal to destroy a single person.
And of course such a conspiracy would only target an important person, so saying it would be unlikely that there would be a conspiracy against Cain because she isn't important enough is clearly shown to be false, because there is a conspiracy against Cain.
No no, Youtube and Patreon where clearly created in a conspiracy by the EFF and the OTW at the beginning of time just so Lindsay Ellis could make a video with the clear goal to totaly and absolutely destroy Cain and even remove her from having ever existed.
You'd have to be delusional to come to any other conclusion considering the undeniable and self evident proof provided here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "insanity" defense has been around for a long time, but this has to be one of the first "insanity offense" cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next step: "No, I didn't do any of that, it was all my lawyer's idea!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah. The next step would be for a Prendaesque moment where it comes out that Addison Cain is actually the lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah again. There's photographic evidence of them being separate people. Nice try, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Damn it...guess that means my popcorn futures just took a hit. Thanks for the correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not necessarily. It might turn out she's been taking legal advice from Richard Liebowitz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'What? Nooo, I never told them to file those DMCA claims...'
It would be entirely within character for her, given she's already shown that she is more than willing to blame others for her actions/wishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The part of this that still just blows my mind is the fact that there is such a thing as wolf-kink erotica.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh my sweet summer child, The interweblinknetsphere has all that, and more. Every day we are turning over the mulch in the Garden of Earthly Delights to show all the pale soft things wriggling under the surface.
awoo, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rule 34: 'If it exists, there is porn of it', and honestly werewolf porn would probably fall on the tamer end of the spectrum given the other stuff out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fan Fiction Deep State
Several fan communities are in dire need of a FFDS. Star Wars and Harry Potter come to mind.
I had hypothesized during the Star Wars prequels Lucas might have been intentionally seasoning them with bad self parody in order to give the franchise back to the people. His friendliness to fan works (all later eliminated by Disney) seemed to add to that.
And in the wake of the Rowling TERF revelations, the Potter series, thought to be problematic but forgivable is now under actual audit by the fan community.
Sturgeon's Law seems to apply no matter if material is fan or commercial, whether it's from the original source or new authors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fan Fiction Deep State
I mean, it says right in the law that it applies to everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ouch my brain
I watched all of the videos above. The whole mess is too crazy to think about.
Wolf Kink? Can't figure out the audience.
The legal part is something I would not believe if I was just told about it.
people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too crazy to think about.
Yes, but watching Lindsey Ellis go knives out was so worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LindSAY Ellis
Lindsay Ellis.
It's a Berenstain Bears syndrome thing in my brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]