UPDATED! Sargon Sued in US Court for Copyright Infringement, Accused of Perjury

Facebook
Facebook
RSS
Follow by Email
GOOGLE
SHARE
PINTEREST

Fellow YouTubers advise him to settle the case.

Carl Benjamin a.k.a. Sargon of Akkad faces backlash after leading online harassment campaigns and allegedly committing perjury and infringing copyright.

 

Edited Aug. 30th to add response video by Akilha, Obviously.
Edited Aug. 26th to add a background video on Carl Benjamin’s shut down account New Memedia.

August 26, 2017 – Carl Benjamin is not having a very good week.

In addition to controversy surrounding his appearance at an event for leading online harassment campaigns and endorsements from white supremacists, Benjamin will now have to defend himself in a US court.

On August 25th, the YouTube channel Lawful Masses with Leonard French reported on a lawsuit by Akilah Hughes (of Akilah Hughes, obviously) against Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) for copyright infringement.

Benjamin, a controversial figure supported by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer and the English Defence League, is no stranger to copyright filings, as the lawsuit details.

A summary of Hughes’ complaints as read out in the video are as follows:

  • Akilah Hughes sued Sargon of Akkad and unnamed ‘John Doe’s for copyright infringement in the US Federal Court Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017.
  • Hughes states she uploaded a video she recorded, created and copyrighted (‘We Thought She Would Win’) documenting the 2016 US Presidential election evening.
  • Benjamin and the other defendants copied and uploaded wholesale reproductions of Hughes’ original content onto the internet. They continued to display the video after being notified by Hughes it was infringement, and even after the video was removed by YouTube for copyright infringement.
  • Due to this, Hughes was forced to file for injunction relief, statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs for Sargon’s unauthorized use, reproduction, and distribution of her original work.
  • Defendants uploaded, copied and presented footage directly from the video as a 1:28 min video with a new title ‘SJW Levels of Awareness‘ (click to watch disputed content). The infringing work provides no additional content, commentary or criticism of the original work, its content or Hughes and contains no additional expression whatsoever. It is a bare, re-titled compilation of Hughes’ copyrighted work without authorization.

Link to content under dispute

 

Benjamin taunts Hughes after getting a copyright strike, despite doing nothing to transform the video as required under a fair use claim.

  • This constitutes blatant and willful copyright infringement.
  • Hughes filed a complaint to YouTube under the DCMA and YouTube disabled viewing for the offending work.
  • Benjamin contact Hughes on social media and privately seeking a retraction of her notice which she declined. In this exchange Benjamin informed Hughes he’d been through the copyright process with YouTube ‘many times now’. Despite their knowledge the content had been removed, defendants continued engaging in their illicit activities.
  • Benjamin uploaded the video to his Twitter account, which was available until his account was shut down (author’s note: over multiple violations of community guidelines and Twitter’s terms and conditions) on or about August 9th.
  • On or about Nov 29, 2016 Benjamin submitted a false DMCA counter claim, affirming under penalty of perjury that he had the right to display the content because, among other reasons, it was a fair use and transformative, which according to the complaint is ‘an outright lie’.
  • Hughes’ complaint points out that Benjamin swore under penalty of perjury when he submitted his counter claim, and the counter claim contains blatantly inaccurate statements and assertions, thus Benjamin has committed perjury.

    Exhibit A, the counter claim filed by Benjamin wherein he claims under penalty of perjury that he had a good faith belief the material was removed due to an error.
Close up of Benjamin’s swearing under penalty of perjury and giving consent to hearing the case in a US Federal District Court.

 

 

The next part of the complaint details how Benjamin was part of several copyright disputes and therefore knew his use of her work did not fall under fair use.

  • A June 2015 copyright dispute with The Guardian newspaper is reviewed.
  • Benjamin’s channel The New Memedia was terminated in March, 2017 for multiple third-party copyright infringement claims. More information here:

    Actual or statutory damages requested
  • First claim for relief is for copyright infringement, seeking actual damages and the defendant’s profits OR (at Hughes’ discretion) statutory damages not to exceed $150,000.00 per work.
  • Second claim for relief is for DMCA misrepresentation for injuries, costs and attorney’s fees.
  • The Prayer for Relief asked that the Court enter an injunction restraining Benjamin and his co-defendants from publishing Hughes’ copyrighted work, to pay Hughes actual or statutory damages of up to $30,000 for each copyrighted work infringed.
  • Hughes asks that if the Court finds Benjamin willfully committed copyright infringement Hughes prays for statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each copyrighted work infringed, actual and punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees and remove all unauthorized reproductions of the work.

In response to comments and questions on social media, Akilah posted a video clarifying the legal basis of her lawsuit, the racial abuse she has received online since filing it, attacks on her appearance and the difference between a recent fair use defense case le(h3h3) and what Benjamin uploaded and called ‘fair use’.

Reactions to the lawsuit from other YouTubers generally conceded that Benjamin did nothing to transform the work in any meaningful way that would allow Benjamin a fair use claim.

Fellow YouTuber MundaneMatt was quick to advise Benjamin that he should settle, calling it a ‘business decision’.

Vee, another YouTuber, posted a video to say Carl Benjamin had not done enough to the video for him to consider it transformative.

The general, non-specialist consensus from YouTubers who deal with copyright and fair use rules every day is that Benjamin has not done enough to transform the video to make a plausible fair use defense.

Legal advice was not the only thing on offer. An anti-feminist posted a video agreeing the work was not fair use, but then bemoaned how terrible it is that a woman who had her intellectual property stolen is able to use the legal system in order to get justice!

 

Update: Carl Benjamin posted to his Gab account that he will not comment until he has obtained legal advice and that he has been banned from Facebook for violating the Community Standards. This is on top of his permanent Twitter ban for violating the terms of service.

 

 

 

  • Justin S

    lol owned

  • Lola Twinkle

    You can play 3 clips from movies to make a point without any added dialogue…why is this different?

    • plainsman844

      Ask any attorney who works with copyrights, or try what this git did and see what happens.

    • Kidd

      What’s different is an angry SJW, the likes who would use anti-bullying panels to bully people they don’t like, was involved. SJW’s live for moments like these when they can actually take a “white supremacist” (see: any white male that does not agree with them 100%) down.

      • Al L

        Agreed 100%. More disturbing, is that this trend of diminishing free opinions, is applauded by many “progressive liberals”.

        • Kidd

          Oh free opinions still exist. There’s nothing wrong with calling white people subhuman monsters who never do anything good for humanity, or saying all men are potential rapists. Unity has a few blind spots.

          • Proud Liberal

            Nah, you’re just a whiny racist.

          • Kidd

            Thank you for illustrating my point. You see, instead of opting for any sort of honest debate or making an attempt to change my outlook, you call me racist. I said nothing racist, and you know nothing about me, you just didn’t like what I said. That’s why people hate SJWs. They don’t want honest debate, indeed they do everything in their power to avoid it.

          • Proud Liberal

            You aren’t looking for “honest debate.” You started off with blatantly false assertions without a shred of evidence. I’m calling you a racist because you’re supporting a racist.

          • Kidd

            Of course I’m looking for honest debate, and part of finding honest debate is calling out the dishonest pretenders, virtue signalers, and professional victims. You see, honest debate cannot happen if your only argument is to call everyone who disagrees with you a bigot. That is the sort of thing one does to AVOID honesty, because the act itself tries to force your opponent on the defensive, while also applying a disturbing context to everything they say, and further assuming the person making the claim has a monopoly on morality, when more often than not, the opposite is true.

          • Proud Liberal

            You started out by poisoning the well and then tried to play innocent when you got called out. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well
            You’re not going to get away with lying to me, I’ve taken down your type of bullshit numerous times.

          • Kidd

            I’m not poisoning the well, I’m trying to enlighten you to something that you seem gleefully and horrifically ignorant of. Your “calling me out” is literally just you saying I’m right because you have no intention to even consider anything I’ve said. I’m actually giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming I’m not wasting my time talking to an idiot, which is rare considering the subject matter.

          • Proud Liberal

            “What’s
            different is an angry SJW, the likes who would use anti-bullying panels
            to bully people they don’t like, was involved. SJW’s live for moments
            like these when they can actually take a “white supremacist” (see: any
            white male that does not agree with them 100%) down.”

            Poisoning the well: “To commit a preemptive ad hominem
            attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with
            adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to
            make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your
            opponent’s claim.”

            https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well

          • Proud Liberal

            “calling out the dishonest pretenders, virtue signalers, and professional victims.”
            Which according to you is anyone who disagrees with you. Why else would you be posting that bullshit here, where the evidence is clear? I can see your other comments, so don’t lie.

          • Kidd

            Not at all, I’ve seen plenty of people disagree with me that I was convinced sought honest debate. The difference is, these people don’t “disagree with me” by calling me a racist hateful bigot. They actually — and this is the part that is important — DEBATE. You see, the difference is, when you DEBATE with someone, you actually try to exchange ideas. What SJWs do is not debate. What they do is say “I am right no matter what you think, and if you disagree with me, you are evil, and should be shunned and ignored to make sure nobody else adopts your evil ideas.” SJW’s do not like being contradicted, and they seek bloody vengeance against any who try.

          • Proud Liberal

            You offered no ideas. You started off poisoning the well. You can’t claim to be arguing in good faith after that and expect not to get called a liar.
            Also “SJW” is a meaningless buzzword. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_avr8834e4g

          • Kidd

            I offered you the idea of an actual debate that does not rely on assuming your opponent is racist, but I’m sure that went over your head. Your mind is not programmed to allow that kind of thought.

            Your videos made by SJW meat-puppets do not impress me, in fact they prove my point. They are literally designed to tell you why you should disregard anything and everything that might be said to contradict them. I can only hope you understand why that’s important, but I won’t get my hopes up.

            SJW’s don’t fight for anything meaningful, they fight to destroy opinions that they don’t like, to protect themselves when reality itself might contradict them. They have no lines they won’t cross. There are some already saying they want white genocide. I hope you’re at least sane enough to realize how utterly horrifying that is.

        • Proud Liberal

          No, you’re just wrong.

          • Gary Miller

            Sorry, idiot. You’re still the one that is wrong. You just can’t understand that nobody is trying to make any money off some shit video this lady made.

        • Proud Liberal
      • Proud Liberal

        You’re wrong on every point.

        • Gary Miller

          Actually Kidd is right on every point. You are the one that is wrong. Very wrong.

          • Proud Liberal

            The evidence says otherwise. You fail at trolling.

          • Gary Miller

            The evidence shows that he put little blobs of her videos on one of his video so that he could show his audience how stupid she is. She is offended and crying like a little bitch. This should not be something you can sue someone for.

        • Kidd

          Actually, I am not. You illustrated my point for me in another comment even. If that’s not enough, I can always give you some proof.

          • Proud Liberal

            Then let’s see some evidence.
            Don’t have any? Got it.

          • Kidd

            Oh I have plenty.
            First, you proved it by calling me racist even though you know nothing about me.

            Second, Anita Sarkeesian used an Anti-Bullying panel to, you guess it, bully Sargon of Akkad. Now, you can argue he provoked her, but that is assuming Anita is too immature to be held accountible for her part in it. She could easily have proven her anti-bullying point by turning the other cheek, asking him politely to leave, being reasonable, but no, she used the panel as a means to destroy her hated enemy. Of course, SJW’s have this view that if they bully you, then THEY are the victim.

            Third, ever hear of the Laughing Witch? Tried to destroy Thunderf00t by having people call his work, call him racist, and force them to fire him. Why? Simple, he criticized her. Of course, it didn’t work, because it turns out he was actually integral to his job. Of course, she bragged he couldn’t do it back to her, because she has no job and is supported by her husband (girl power). So, what did Thunderf00t do? Ask his followers to promote a boycott of her husband’s business. Naturally, she apologized afterwards for her actions.

            Need more?

          • Proud Liberal

            Cherry-Picking. Also lies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krnzfxcmDqI
            And no, I haven’t heard of this “Laughing Witch.” I have heard how Phil has called out Carl and the rest of the bigoted shiteheads in the septic community. When the guy who’s been caught lying numerous times calls out his own group you know they’ve gone too far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bVqfQvXP2o
            And your entire argument is invalid simply because you’re using a meaningless term to try to smear anyone who disagrees with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_avr8834e4g
            Here’s your ass, I’m handing it to you.

          • Kidd

            While we’re on the subject of fallacies, ever hear of the “fallacy” fallacy? Accusing me of fallacies is not proving that I’m wrong, it’s proving you need a reason to disregard what I say.

            Not at all, all truths. You just don’t like them so you assume they are lies. You probably hear a different story too, because that’s what SJWs do — they tell the story to make themselves seem like the sympathetic party, when in truth no one screams louder or makes a greater demand for revenge upon their enemeis.

            Now, I won’t say Sakaad didn’t ask for it, I’m sure he understood entirely what he was getting into, but the fact of the matter is Anita bought into the bait hook line and sinker. She had a moment to prove she was the better person, and instead she used it to attack her hated enemy. As for Laughing Witch, well, she started a letter-writing campaign to get Thunderf00t fired from his job by calling him a Nazi. So proud was she that she *recorded* herself sending out the E-mail. Long story short, this backfired on her, and she eventually issued an apology to Thunderf00t, you know, for the mess she created in the first place

          • Proud Liberal

            Your argument rests on those fallacies and no other evidence. So it’s not the fallacy fallacy.

            It’s not on the victim of harassment to let the harassment continue. Carl and his fellow pieces of shit admitted they went there to harass Anita. They kept interrupting her presentation and then tried to play the victim when they got called out. Also Vidcon says they were at fault. https://medium.com/@VidCon/vidcon-debrief-e6bb4e187a28

            I have nothing to do with the Laughing Witch. Since “SJW” is a meaningless term you can’t use it to claim anyone’s related under it. So I don’t have to say shit about Laughing Witch. Anti-feminists keep trying to bring up the distant past to justify your current abuses.

    • Proud Liberal

      Because that’s not how it works.

    • Mr WoolyBee

      is that your informed legal opinion?

  • Pingback: Oh no, another lawsuit?()

  • Al L

    A fucking nasty SJW bitch seeking to silence a voice of reason.

    • Brian

      Sorry, is she also suing somebody who’s a voice of reason?

    • Proud Liberal

      Nah, Carl’s going to take it up the ass in court and lose his money.

  • Pingback: Here We Go Again: Akilah Hughes Sues Sargon of Akkad Over Copyright Infringement - telapost()