After recording, I did confirm the court filing does have an actual email address that the email came from (JASTUSA). So the email was blurred after the fact.
hmmm, this is a hard one, its almost like they should have had a contract, will they be allowed to keep it up forever? no definitely not, might have to take it down now... judge will have to go over everything and decide if they didn't put a time in writing.
CORRECTION to your video: Per the US Patent Office if the owner files a certificate of intent, the owner has 5 years to copyright any work released to the public. HOWEVER, if no certificate has been file, then the owner has only three (3) months to apply for copyright. According to rebuttal the “owners” did not file a certificate nor did they file a copyright for twelve (12) months after releasing (publishing) the works. If true the owner has lost for all time the copyright in the USA and work becomes public domain for anyone to use as they wish.
Andrew confirmed as cultured. (Not that it was ever in question) Those 2 in the thumbnail just got part 3 of their series added to Hanime very recently. Great choice!
7:36 Yeah, i think you are reading that wrong. PCR is basically asking for damages for all the time the works have been uploaded, while Nh alleges that they should not be asking for damages for the time when they did not have a copyright claim.
Copyright law (as I understand it) allows only very limited damages (think thousands of dollars) if you didn't register your work officially - but if you registered it correctly you get into 'all the money in the universe' territory - I think if they only registered much later they are limited to *actual damages* and no lawyer fees.
@@xThemadpoet actual damages... i.e. 0. you can't prove that a single viewer of content would have paid for that content or given company money, you can only prove if infringer made money directly off the sale of such content. advertising might not actually be directly profiting off content rather, just placement of advertisements.
That’s how I understood it as well. They’re saying it’s improper because they are going to a time the other party didn’t own it yet still wants payment for that.
@@MiseRaen Per the US Patent Office if the owner files a certificate of intent, the owner has 5 years to copyright any work released to the public. HOWEVER, if no certificate has been file, then the owner has only three (3) months to apply for copyright. According to rebuttal the “owners” did not file a certificate nor did they file a copyright for twelve (12) months after releasing (publishing) the works. If true, then the owner have lost for all time the copyright in the USA and work becomes public domain for anyone to use as they wish.
Their argument regarding ownership isn't necessarily invalid. JASTUSA originally began as the US subsidy of the Japanese company JAST. The Japanese company went under in 2000 and JASTUSA struck out on their own (under a different name, they later resurrected the JAST brand and of course you've had the usual mergers and acquisitions) and IP doesn't automatically transfer to a subsidiary just because the parent company closed down. They're also a publisher rather than an author which means NH is right to ask for the receipts - it's the actual rights holder than needs to make the claim; just because you're licensed to distribute someone else's work doesn't mean you hold any rights to that work.
except in court it wont matter because NH is an illegal arrging website to begin with a spicy content website at that which in a US court is not going to fly. A Judge is more likely to side with JAST just from a glance and immedietly deny any repeals. If anything NH would have been better off keeping quite, shutting down, and rebranding as losing a court case as a arrging website sets a precedent that affects other arrging websites. However, as some people are saying JAST may also be requesting the owner's identity because the japanese parent company wants to make an example out of them(pinch of salt).
@@MarkFin9423except that is for the court to decide as its easy to say that a site or practice is illegal as a lowly citizen but its costly to prove or make a precedent that such websites are illegal.
@@MarkFin9423 I must respectfully disagree. The court must still follow the law and the established precedent on copyright, no matter how much a Defendant may seem to be wrong. If NH makes sound legal arguments and have the proof to back themselves up, they have a chance of winning the suit.
@ although true depending on the judge however, what they have is not even near enough to make a case in court, not by a long shot. The evidence they got is shaky at best and they need a definitive receipts, NH does not have that. Best outcome NH have is shutting down without needing to pay damages but now it's unlikely NH can rebrand after a shutdown.
@@MarkFin9423 That judgment is premature when the case haven't even went into discovery yet. So far, the Statute of Limitations is a solid defense and the email they attached is very probative evidence for the defense in my opinion. If that email can be proven to originate from an authorized representative of the Plaintiff who can bind the company, the Defendant would have a solid defense.
10:46 It's one of those "kinda sorta" situations. The western Anime Fandom has it's core in people doing fansubs of anime going back decades, even back to the 80s and 90s when people would import VHS tapes from Japan, do the subtitles and then share them with their friends. And while there was some official licensing going on, a lot of it was pre-digital piracy. Then, in the late 90s, early 00s, there was the big boom of anime becoming mainstream. Where a lot of the "market research" done by licensers was basically keeping track of what got pirated the most and then licensing those series, along with renewing older licenses of popular shows from previous years.
As a writer I can tell you that indeed is how copyright works. If you don't actually send it in to the US copyright quickly you lose some of your rights. Not sure how it works between countries though.
Late copyright after posting won't block a take-down, but it should block damages. It's worth a try...if they lose the other arguments but succeed on that one, then they take down the material but aren't forced to pay a bunch extra (especially for damages prior to request to take down content). Similarly, showing the prior email from company makes it harder for claimant to collect damages as opposed to just forcing a take-down.
Failure to timely register a copyright does actually remove the ability to sue for Statutory damages (a fixed amount per infringement). Thus, under those circumstances, one has to prove ACTUAL damages (which is very hard)
I think it's damning for the courts the government and the industry to have a company outright admit that DCMA does nothing. if a court adjudicates on that claim, and finds in fact that DCMA does nothing, it opens a whole lot of hurt for the industry in favor of consumer rights. if it grants no relief and actually helps the industry in the long run, it opens the flood gates for 1st amendment claims on the topic. it puts copyright in a position where it's effectively unenforceable.
DMCA was never made to protect the artist, it was made to restrict creativity so it can be paywalled. Even to this day DMCA has done an immense amount of irreparable damage to the internet as a whole. Thanks to DMCA nothing on the internet is forever, it's all an illusion, it's all temporary now.
I don't know if copyright works at all like trademark. But if it does the email may hurt them. Basically showing a lack of interest in protecting it so there for the copyright is diluted?
On a completely unrelated note, I was watching a live stream by Weeb Crew of 2025 anime. They put Beheneko on “Garbage/dropped” tier but I teamed up with an anituber, Lexitoras to convince them to give it the 3 episode test so it would move up the rankint 🤝❤️
One of the more interesting things about the internet is whether speech made at some point in the past is still speaking that now. You can see this with things like the honey sponsored videos.....where numerous people took sponsored segments saying things that with later updates to the program are just plain false. If it was true at the time of sponsorship, who is liable when the product changed over time? Is a video uploaded years ago performing speech now or is it performing speech only when it was uploaded? (This is a legal premise that sometimes gets ruled one way and sometimes the other and would be applicable to some of the arguments made). One of the arguments here is that they seem to have "permission" from the rights holder company and it is a different company issuing a take down request that bought out the right holder company. Just because someone new bought out a company and issued a takedown notice does not supercede other permissions are change any agreement......otherwise any landlord that bought a property could terminate any rental agreements made to previous owner or any company that wanted to get out of a bad contract could just sell to a new owner and claim their deals are no longer valid. If there was a deal made to previous owner that they could show this content with whatever requested content along with it such as banner ads, then that deal would have to be specifically rescinded. In fact, you could even argue that the copyright owners benefited from the pirate website hosting these properties and that email is and acknowledgement of those benefits and is thus a contract agreement.....and because the takedown request is a different company...even if its a new parent company....that the original deal has not been rescinded nor should it be under fair practices in contract law.......otherwise any company could sign a deal and then get bought by a shell company and claim the deal is invalid.
15:30 Saving emails... Before I retired a year ago as an commercial flight systems and space flight systems software engineer I could easily find emails in Outlook that I'd saved from 1994 or so. Of course the company frowned on saving emails for more than a year due to litigation concerns (disclosure and discovery) but I can't tell you how many times as an engineer some weird problem found in the software from 10+ years ago became important. More than once I've been able to forward an old email while saying "You told me to do it this way four years ago." Eventually the lawyers had their way and if you wanted to save any new emails for more than a year you had to save them to PDF because fuck actually being able to do your job vs checking a Mandate Box.
I don't know about Copyrights, but with PATENTS the date of PUBLICATION is of utmost importance. You MUST file for a patent BEFORE first publication. If you first publish then you CANNOT patent.
based on my understanding of the law if a company emails you saying hey we know you exist and we are not going to dmca or copy right infringement you as doing so would be a waste of time and then pose a mutual solution of a banner then they formed an implied agreement. The fact that PCR is trying to uncover the identity of the owners and operators is suspect as the suit may be only be there to gain that knowledge and use outside legal means of dealing with those people which is illegal and dangerous. I can understand NH wanting to prevent their information being doxed and then getting death threats or physical harm to them. I think that if you post something and 5-10-or even 20 years later someone else picks up the licenses to the product they shouldn't be allowed to come after you. That be like Disney buying marvel and some guy in the 80s made fan fiction or a movie of it and now that disney owns it they can come after that person and take their livelyhood cause of something 40 years ago.
Didn't register Copyright? Not likely going anywhere with that argument. Gave permission? Seems so, but WHAT did they permit? They can't permit anything they don't own the rights to permit. For how long? Probably not relevant because it'd be on the rights holder to specify a term if they wanted one. It'll come down to is this a valid grant of permission (who sent the email, did they have the right to permit anything for their company), and what content did they have the right to permit exactly. Put another way, you work the counter at Starbucks. What are you permitted to promise anyone? Vs you are the owner of the franchise, what right do you have to promise anyone anything? And if you give someone a deal today for a drink today or even all drinks, does it cover all future products forever more?
Nah Man, Unless Ya State A Time, That's On You TBH. Would That Cause Problems? Most Likely, But Yeah Nah, They Did A Dumb, They Deserve To Take An L On This. However Much Of An L If Fine By Me.
I buy visual novels on JASTUSA to play kamige's. J18 I don't really care much about. I do plan on playing Mojika since it seems like the last edgy Nitro+ title.
15:00 Don't underestimate the laziness of the courts. Most judges would prefer not to go through with the hassle of issuing judgements and would rather punt the ball off to someone else (usually mediation or marriage counseling in non-criminal situations). In this particular case they could easily ask both side to prepare more arguments to be presented 3 months later while hoping the sides will settle take the issue off the judge's table.
Your giving too much credit that the court/judges are stupid. You have to file anything that you can attempt, cause anything you dont, you cannot even try. If the other side fails to counter it, you win, the judge cannot inject their own view or interpertation into that fight. If they cannot counter the arguement successfully, like california did recently, the judge has to rule for them.
Honestly I just find all this ridiculous. Taking away access to spicy content that would otherwise not see visibility is foolish. Yes this is arrged content, but let's be realistic in terms of the US. In the US spicy content is free, the only reason spicy content gets paywalled is if your zahub, onlyfools, or a spicy game. No one effectively pays for spicy content from japan. All the copyright takedowns, cracking down, and DMCA'ing will do is just create an environment where none of this content will see the light of day in the US. Why is that? The moment they see a paywall, they leave, simple as that. Only fools pay for degen slop.
After recording, I did confirm the court filing does have an actual email address that the email came from (JASTUSA). So the email was blurred after the fact.
hmmm, this is a hard one, its almost like they should have had a contract, will they be allowed to keep it up forever? no definitely not, might have to take it down now... judge will have to go over everything and decide if they didn't put a time in writing.
CORRECTION to your video: Per the US Patent Office if the owner files a certificate of intent, the owner has 5 years to copyright any work released to the public. HOWEVER, if no certificate has been file, then the owner has only three (3) months to apply for copyright. According to rebuttal the “owners” did not file a certificate nor did they file a copyright for twelve (12) months after releasing (publishing) the works. If true the owner has lost for all time the copyright in the USA and work becomes public domain for anyone to use as they wish.
Andrew confirmed as cultured. (Not that it was ever in question) Those 2 in the thumbnail just got part 3 of their series added to Hanime very recently. Great choice!
I'm glad it got a part 3, i hope there is even more
I need the numbers mason
@ "kaede to suzu"
@@Ricardo_Rick ty king
7:36 Yeah, i think you are reading that wrong. PCR is basically asking for damages for all the time the works have been uploaded, while Nh alleges that they should not be asking for damages for the time when they did not have a copyright claim.
They are essentially saying thay JAST USA has to file the copyright complaint regardless if the company has grounds for it or not.
Copyright law (as I understand it) allows only very limited damages (think thousands of dollars) if you didn't register your work officially - but if you registered it correctly you get into 'all the money in the universe' territory - I think if they only registered much later they are limited to *actual damages* and no lawyer fees.
@@xThemadpoet
actual damages... i.e. 0.
you can't prove that a single viewer of content would have paid for that content or given company money, you can only prove if infringer made money directly off the sale of such content. advertising might not actually be directly profiting off content rather, just placement of advertisements.
That’s how I understood it as well. They’re saying it’s improper because they are going to a time the other party didn’t own it yet still wants payment for that.
this has been a wild ride most sites just rebrand or shut down but nh is fighting
It's turning into an interesting saga lol
This looks to be that 'Wait a minute' moment for NH when they looked at the legalese and saw an out.
@@MiseRaen Per the US Patent Office if the owner files a certificate of intent, the owner has 5 years to copyright any work released to the public. HOWEVER, if no certificate has been file, then the owner has only three (3) months to apply for copyright. According to rebuttal the “owners” did not file a certificate nor did they file a copyright for twelve (12) months after releasing (publishing) the works. If true, then the owner have lost for all time the copyright in the USA and work becomes public domain for anyone to use as they wish.
Their argument regarding ownership isn't necessarily invalid. JASTUSA originally began as the US subsidy of the Japanese company JAST. The Japanese company went under in 2000 and JASTUSA struck out on their own (under a different name, they later resurrected the JAST brand and of course you've had the usual mergers and acquisitions) and IP doesn't automatically transfer to a subsidiary just because the parent company closed down. They're also a publisher rather than an author which means NH is right to ask for the receipts - it's the actual rights holder than needs to make the claim; just because you're licensed to distribute someone else's work doesn't mean you hold any rights to that work.
except in court it wont matter because NH is an illegal arrging website to begin with a spicy content website at that which in a US court is not going to fly. A Judge is more likely to side with JAST just from a glance and immedietly deny any repeals. If anything NH would have been better off keeping quite, shutting down, and rebranding as losing a court case as a arrging website sets a precedent that affects other arrging websites. However, as some people are saying JAST may also be requesting the owner's identity because the japanese parent company wants to make an example out of them(pinch of salt).
@@MarkFin9423except that is for the court to decide as its easy to say that a site or practice is illegal as a lowly citizen but its costly to prove or make a precedent that such websites are illegal.
@@MarkFin9423 I must respectfully disagree. The court must still follow the law and the established precedent on copyright, no matter how much a Defendant may seem to be wrong. If NH makes sound legal arguments and have the proof to back themselves up, they have a chance of winning the suit.
@ although true depending on the judge however, what they have is not even near enough to make a case in court, not by a long shot. The evidence they got is shaky at best and they need a definitive receipts, NH does not have that. Best outcome NH have is shutting down without needing to pay damages but now it's unlikely NH can rebrand after a shutdown.
@@MarkFin9423 That judgment is premature when the case haven't even went into discovery yet. So far, the Statute of Limitations is a solid defense and the email they attached is very probative evidence for the defense in my opinion. If that email can be proven to originate from an authorized representative of the Plaintiff who can bind the company, the Defendant would have a solid defense.
10:46 It's one of those "kinda sorta" situations. The western Anime Fandom has it's core in people doing fansubs of anime going back decades, even back to the 80s and 90s when people would import VHS tapes from Japan, do the subtitles and then share them with their friends. And while there was some official licensing going on, a lot of it was pre-digital piracy. Then, in the late 90s, early 00s, there was the big boom of anime becoming mainstream. Where a lot of the "market research" done by licensers was basically keeping track of what got pirated the most and then licensing those series, along with renewing older licenses of popular shows from previous years.
As a writer I can tell you that indeed is how copyright works. If you don't actually send it in to the US copyright quickly you lose some of your rights. Not sure how it works between countries though.
Correct. You lose the ability to get Statutory damages. You Have to prove Actual damage - in other words you have to demonstrate actual lost sales.
Late copyright after posting won't block a take-down, but it should block damages. It's worth a try...if they lose the other arguments but succeed on that one, then they take down the material but aren't forced to pay a bunch extra (especially for damages prior to request to take down content).
Similarly, showing the prior email from company makes it harder for claimant to collect damages as opposed to just forcing a take-down.
Failure to timely register a copyright does actually remove the ability to sue for Statutory damages (a fixed amount per infringement). Thus, under those circumstances, one has to prove ACTUAL damages (which is very hard)
afaik you absolutely can not retroactively enforce copyright, definitely not on images [seen that in courts with photographers]
even if they can afford lawyers, the cost... the cost! which begs the question
does the loser pay the winner of all the legal fees AND legal damages?
I think it's damning for the courts the government and the industry to have a company outright admit that DCMA does nothing. if a court adjudicates on that claim, and finds in fact that DCMA does nothing, it opens a whole lot of hurt for the industry in favor of consumer rights. if it grants no relief and actually helps the industry in the long run, it opens the flood gates for 1st amendment claims on the topic. it puts copyright in a position where it's effectively unenforceable.
DMCA was never made to protect the artist, it was made to restrict creativity so it can be paywalled. Even to this day DMCA has done an immense amount of irreparable damage to the internet as a whole. Thanks to DMCA nothing on the internet is forever, it's all an illusion, it's all temporary now.
lmao the kaede to suzu thumbnail was perfect because it got removed from the site
as soon as i saw the thumbnail i was like those 2 are my favorite hentai heroins. cant wait for the sequel series.
I don't know if copyright works at all like trademark. But if it does the email may hurt them. Basically showing a lack of interest in protecting it so there for the copyright is diluted?
copyright is one of those things that company's are encouraged to enforce, and passively ignoring offending sites usually dilutes their claims.
I think that they're working to reduce liability by claiming to be dumb rather than malicious
My brain: "I wonder if Hoeg Law has an video on this?" He IS a Copyright lawyer after all.
I censor the name of the site by calling it "spicy manga" with an Italian accent.
New defense: "I am legal, you are the pirate!"
On a completely unrelated note, I was watching a live stream by Weeb Crew of 2025 anime. They put Beheneko on “Garbage/dropped” tier but I teamed up with an anituber, Lexitoras to convince them to give it the 3 episode test so it would move up the rankint 🤝❤️
One of the more interesting things about the internet is whether speech made at some point in the past is still speaking that now. You can see this with things like the honey sponsored videos.....where numerous people took sponsored segments saying things that with later updates to the program are just plain false. If it was true at the time of sponsorship, who is liable when the product changed over time? Is a video uploaded years ago performing speech now or is it performing speech only when it was uploaded? (This is a legal premise that sometimes gets ruled one way and sometimes the other and would be applicable to some of the arguments made).
One of the arguments here is that they seem to have "permission" from the rights holder company and it is a different company issuing a take down request that bought out the right holder company. Just because someone new bought out a company and issued a takedown notice does not supercede other permissions are change any agreement......otherwise any landlord that bought a property could terminate any rental agreements made to previous owner or any company that wanted to get out of a bad contract could just sell to a new owner and claim their deals are no longer valid.
If there was a deal made to previous owner that they could show this content with whatever requested content along with it such as banner ads, then that deal would have to be specifically rescinded.
In fact, you could even argue that the copyright owners benefited from the pirate website hosting these properties and that email is and acknowledgement of those benefits and is thus a contract agreement.....and because the takedown request is a different company...even if its a new parent company....that the original deal has not been rescinded nor should it be under fair practices in contract law.......otherwise any company could sign a deal and then get bought by a shell company and claim the deal is invalid.
15:30 Saving emails... Before I retired a year ago as an commercial flight systems and space flight systems software engineer I could easily find emails in Outlook that I'd saved from 1994 or so. Of course the company frowned on saving emails for more than a year due to litigation concerns (disclosure and discovery) but I can't tell you how many times as an engineer some weird problem found in the software from 10+ years ago became important. More than once I've been able to forward an old email while saying "You told me to do it this way four years ago."
Eventually the lawyers had their way and if you wanted to save any new emails for more than a year you had to save them to PDF because fuck actually being able to do your job vs checking a Mandate Box.
Yes i knew you were cultured and you proved it with that thumbnail 😂
I don't know about Copyrights, but with PATENTS the date of PUBLICATION is of utmost importance. You MUST file for a patent BEFORE first publication. If you first publish then you CANNOT patent.
based on my understanding of the law if a company emails you saying hey we know you exist and we are not going to dmca or copy right infringement you as doing so would be a waste of time and then pose a mutual solution of a banner then they formed an implied agreement.
The fact that PCR is trying to uncover the identity of the owners and operators is suspect as the suit may be only be there to gain that knowledge and use outside legal means of dealing with those people which is illegal and dangerous. I can understand NH wanting to prevent their information being doxed and then getting death threats or physical harm to them.
I think that if you post something and 5-10-or even 20 years later someone else picks up the licenses to the product they shouldn't be allowed to come after you. That be like Disney buying marvel and some guy in the 80s made fan fiction or a movie of it and now that disney owns it they can come after that person and take their livelyhood cause of something 40 years ago.
5:30 definitely twist it in their own corporate language
7:00 7:26
7:50
8:00 helped a lot 10:30 ->
11:00 it will be good discussion 11:30 -> 12:15 40
14:50 16:40 17:50 no one does 18:13
This is very interesting.
would like to see legal mindset state his take on this case.
The from may be redacted and the court does have it. But what is publicly available doesn’t have that as it’s an issue.
Didn't register Copyright? Not likely going anywhere with that argument.
Gave permission? Seems so, but WHAT did they permit? They can't permit anything they don't own the rights to permit.
For how long? Probably not relevant because it'd be on the rights holder to specify a term if they wanted one.
It'll come down to is this a valid grant of permission (who sent the email, did they have the right to permit anything for their company), and what content did they have the right to permit exactly.
Put another way, you work the counter at Starbucks. What are you permitted to promise anyone? Vs you are the owner of the franchise, what right do you have to promise anyone anything? And if you give someone a deal today for a drink today or even all drinks, does it cover all future products forever more?
on RUclips you say it like: nhent A.I.
I use Jast so I am glad that they are fighting back
kaede and suzu FOR THE WIN
Nah Man, Unless Ya State A Time, That's On You TBH. Would That Cause Problems? Most Likely, But Yeah Nah, They Did A Dumb, They Deserve To Take An L On This. However Much Of An L If Fine By Me.
I buy visual novels on JASTUSA to play kamige's. J18 I don't really care much about. I do plan on playing Mojika since it seems like the last edgy Nitro+ title.
New video ❤❤❤
To bad a lot of the greatest hits were removed but then again I get why lol
doesn't the site actively try to take down content that get's licensed in the west?
15:00 Don't underestimate the laziness of the courts. Most judges would prefer not to go through with the hassle of issuing judgements and would rather punt the ball off to someone else (usually mediation or marriage counseling in non-criminal situations). In this particular case they could easily ask both side to prepare more arguments to be presented 3 months later while hoping the sides will settle take the issue off the judge's table.
Your giving too much credit that the court/judges are stupid. You have to file anything that you can attempt, cause anything you dont, you cannot even try. If the other side fails to counter it, you win, the judge cannot inject their own view or interpertation into that fight. If they cannot counter the arguement successfully, like california did recently, the judge has to rule for them.
Honestly I just find all this ridiculous. Taking away access to spicy content that would otherwise not see visibility is foolish. Yes this is arrged content, but let's be realistic in terms of the US. In the US spicy content is free, the only reason spicy content gets paywalled is if your zahub, onlyfools, or a spicy game.
No one effectively pays for spicy content from japan. All the copyright takedowns, cracking down, and DMCA'ing will do is just create an environment where none of this content will see the light of day in the US. Why is that? The moment they see a paywall, they leave, simple as that. Only fools pay for degen slop.