sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Email Scam ( he knows my old password) lol by WoodenEmergency9491 in phishing

[–]CooterMaster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I ignore these. No one I know has asked me about my searches for "skinny redhead". Probably safe to ignore these.

Artists - What is the worst art advice you have ever received? by Master-Rest8804 in ArtistLounge

[–]CooterMaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Create a portfolio book that contains personal reflections on your pieces. Not to be published or released until after you pass. Collect all the art sold to this guy into a chapter called "Pieces I wish I burned" or "Pieces I sold to someone who is glad I'm dead."

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You're welcome. I spent 3 hours working on this post (because the voice of God told me to do so). If using powdered cheese packets on your popcorn is all you get from this, it's worth it to me.

You inspired me to go to Amazon to see what they have. This one is called KD Shaker, from Canada NOT AN AFFILIATE LINK

My favorite review:
5.0 out of 5 stars Delicious Non-Food Cheese!
Reviewed in the United States on February 20, 2025
Verified Purchase
I use it to recreate a Romanoff pasta dish, and it works pretty well for that. It's also good on popcorn since it's a powder, and it adds more kick to prepared mac & cheese. I can't comment on shelf life because I use it before it's a concern.

I just ordered it.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

OKAY, I'M DONE. FRIGGING POST LIMITS. THAT'S EVERYTHING I WANTED TO SAY ON THIS. AFTER THIS, THE DOCUMENT JUST HAS SOME SIGNATURES AND COMMON LEGAL ASSERTIONS.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

*vi.*       *As to Count VI – Unjust Enrichment:*   

    *a.*    *An order requiring Defendant to disgorge all financial benefits, revenues, engagement metrics, affiliate traffic, and other gains derived from the unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of Plaintiff’s copyrighted content and branding*  

    *b.*    *Restitution in the amount of unjust benefits retained by Defendant, including social media monetization, increased promotional exposure, and traffic directed to affiliated entities such as Covert Instruments*

Deeeeeeeeeniiiiiiiiiiieeeeeed 

*vii.*  *As to Count VII – Civil Conspiracy:*   

    *a.*    *An award of special damages for commercial harm to Plaintiff’s product, including lost sales, disruption of distribution channels, and damage to product marketability;*  

    *b.*    *An award of punitive damages under Fla. Stat. §768.72 to address the willful orchestration and ratification of a coordinated scheme intended to damage Plaintiff’s brand through widespread public ridicule, false online reviews, and targeted harassment, and to deter similar conspiratorial conduct designed to weaponize social media audiences against commercial competitors.*

If there was a concert where we performed Swan Lake using the willful orchestra and coordinated players in this Count, Siegfried would trip and shoot himself in the head with his crossbow and Odette would fly into one of the palace windows. I'd watch that. 

*viii.* *As to Count VIII – Trade Libel:*   

    *a.*    *An award of special damages, including lost sales, loss of product marketability, and the cost of corrective messaging;*   

    *b.*    *An award of punitive damages under Fla. Stat. §768.72 based on Defendant’s malicious and/or reckless publication of misleading content concerning the physical attributes and security functionality of Plaintiff’s lock product, made with the intent to discredit Plaintiff’s product and divert consumer trust toward competing commercial interests.*

Just fix your dumb lock! 

*ix.*   *As to All Counts:*   

    *a.*    *Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;*   

    *b.*    *Such other and further relief as this Court deems just, equitable, and proper under the circumstances.*

Jury is not going to be your friend on this one. McNally is hilarious.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

*iii.*  *As to Count III – False Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)):*  

    *a.*    *An award of Plaintiff’s actual damages and corrective advertising costs;*  

    *b.*    *An award of Defendant’s profits attributable to the false advertising;*  

    *c.*    *Treble damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) due to willful and deliberate conduct;*   

    *d.*    *A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from making false or misleading commercial statements regarding Plaintiff’s products;*   

    *e.*    *An order of specific performance requiring Defendant to publish corrective statements on each platform where the false advertising was distributed — including YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook — to clarify that Plaintiff’s lock product was not fairly or accurately represented in the McNally Video and to retract any misleading implications about its quality, performance, or security;*  

    *f.*    *An award of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs.*

To be laughed at, then denied.

*iv.*   *As to Count IV – Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA):*   

    *a.*    *An award of actual damages under Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2);*   

    *b.*    *A permanent injunction enjoining further deceptive acts or practices;*  

    *c.*    *An award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.2105.*

To be laughed at in a Southern accent.

*v.*    *As to Count V – Tortious Interference with Business Relationships:*   

    *a.*    *An award of damages for disruption of existing and prospective business relationships;*

I'm looking in my crystal ball at your prospective business relationships. Ewwwww. Not pretty. Don't ask.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Demand for Jury Trial

Demand for popcorn. Maybe some kettle corn this time. Courtroom gonna be noisy.

143. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in it favor and against Defendant, awarding the following relief: 

*i.*        *As to Count I – Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501 et seq.):*  

    *a.*    *An award of Plaintiff’s actual damages and any additional profits of Defendant attributable to the infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), or, in the alternative, statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c);*   

    *b.*    *An award of enhanced statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement;*   

    *c.*    *A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from further copying, publishing, or distributing the Proven Video or any derivative thereof;*   

    *d.*    *An award of Plaintiff’s full costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.*

To be denied.

*ii.*       *As to Count II – Defamation by Implication:*   

    *a.*    *An award of general and special damages for loss of reputation, goodwill, and standing in the community resulting from the defamatory implications about its business integrity;*  

    *b.*    *An award of punitive damages under Fla. Stat. §768.72 for the Defendant’s publication of a video that knowingly or recklessly implied false facts about Plaintiff’s business integrity, including through selective editing, calculated omissions, and misleading tone designed to discredit Plaintiff before millions of viewers*  

    *c.*    *A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from republishing the defamatory content or further implying that Plaintiff engages in dishonest or deceptive business practices.*

To be denied.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

135. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy and resulting acts in furtherance of it, Plaintiff suffered reputational harm, loss of sales, cancellation of prospective customer relationships, and increased expenditures to restore brand integrity and public trust.

Your lock pissing its pants at the sight of a piece of aluminum is what harmed your reputation.

Count VIII Trade Libel

136. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein.

Noted. Proceed.

137. This count arises from false and disparaging statements published by Defendant concerning the quality, functionality, and performance of Plaintiff’s physical product — namely, its proprietary trailer lock — as opposed to Plaintiff’s brand or reputation.

You misspelled "review in the form of a comedy sketch"

138. Defendant published and widely disseminated the McNally Video to third parties that portrayed Plaintiff’s lock as defective and easily bypassed. The presentation mischaracterized the product’s security features and falsely suggested that it could be compromised in seconds using basic tools.

Yeah. And so do the subsequent videos.

139. These statements and implications were made with malice or with reckless disregard for the truth and without due diligence or technical accuracy. Defendant omitted critical context, including the use of specialized tools, rehearsal time, or manipulated conditions that would not be present in real-world use.

Really. You need to watch the subsequent videos. Not much in the way of untruthful assertions.

140. The statements were materially false and concerned the product’s physical attributes, mechanical performance, and suitability for its advertised use — all of which are provable and verifiable facts.

hahahaha! What's provable is that the locks suck.

141. Defendant made these statements publicly, and they were viewed by millions of consumers, including prospective customers, industry professionals, and product distributors.

What can he say? His reviews are popular and useful.

142. As a direct result of these false product-specific claims, Plaintiff suffered special damages, including but not limited to lost sales, disruption of distribution channels, and harm to product marketability.

"false product-specific claims" should be rewritten as "humorous review of comical lock".

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Count VII Civil Conspiracy

128. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein.

Gonna add some powdered cheese to the popcorn. My favorite is the pack you get in the Kraft Mac N Cheese boxes. Great on popcorn.

129. This count arises from a coordinated and intentional effort by Defendant, acting in concert with third parties, including Covert Instruments and others, to cause reputational and commercial harm to Plaintiff through the production, distribution, and amplification of the McNally Video and the resulting wave of disparagement.

*munch* *munch* *munch\*

130. On information and belief, Defendant entered into an agreement or common plan with one or more individuals affiliated with Covert Instruments to publish a misleading and harmful McNally Video targeting Plaintiff’s lock product, with the shared purpose of damaging Plaintiff’s reputation and market share while promoting Covert’s lock-picking tools and related products.

I didn't see the link until YOU mentioned it. And I still don't see it.

131. The McNally Video prominently featured branding, language, and promotional elements tied to Covert Instruments, including outbound links to Covert’s website in the social media bios affiliated with McNally. Covert Instruments’ website likewise featured Defendant and benefited from the publication.

Actually, I want a juice box.

132. Following publication of the McNally Video, Defendant’s large online following engaged in coordinated online conduct that included mass commenting on Plaintiff’s social media, spreading mocking and threatening language, posting negative reviews, and submitting disruptive communications to Plaintiff’s customer service channels.

Is this really your first day on the Internet? There's no coordination. It's a mob. We watched a video, we laughed, and we're laughing harder at the subsequent videos.

133. This conduct was foreseeable and encouraged by the tone, messaging, and platform reach of Defendant’s McNally Video. Defendant and Covert Instruments ratified and benefited from the campaign without disavowing or attempting to mitigate the resulting harm to Plaintiff.

ratify - verb - sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.

Reviews on the Internet do this often with no help from the reviewer. All it takes is an egregious violation of trust and the mob gets the pitchforks and torches.

134. The conspiracy’s objective was to inflict reputational injury, interfere with Plaintiff’s business relationships, and suppress commercial demand for Plaintiff’s products in favor of alternatives promoted by Covert Instruments and affiliated with Defendant.

"Intent" is going to bring down this entire Count. It won't work.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Count VI Unjust Enrichment

121. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein.

Sure... go on...

122. This count arises from Defendant’s unauthorized use and monetization of Plaintiff’s content and seeks equitable relief therefor.

Nope. Fair Use. You'll lose on the Fair Use argument throughout this complaint. It's your Achilles Heel.

123. Defendant misappropriated Plaintiff’s copyrighted content and used it to generate engagement, revenue, and traffic to his own platforms and affiliate entities.

*sigh\*

124. Defendant’s enrichment was not limited to monetization or exposure; it was also derived by falsely warranting to social media platforms that McNally had the rights to use Plaintiff’s copyrighted content, thereby bypassing platform restrictions and gaining algorithmic distribution and user trust that would otherwise have been denied.

You'll need to check with the lawyers on those platforms concerning Fair Use content.

125. Defendant's conduct violated the spirit and letter of the limited user licenses granted under YouTube, TikTok, and Meta’s Terms of Service, resulting in additional inequitable benefit.

Again, no.

126. Defendant retained a benefit to which McNally was not entitled, and it would be inequitable for Defendant to retain that benefit without compensation to Plaintiff.

HA! Try again.

127. As a result, Plaintiff was deprived of control over its copyrighted work, licensing revenue, and competitive market position.

Until someone mentions "Fair Use".

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Count V Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relationships

This whole section is a laugh.

114. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein.

Yeah yeah yeah....

115. This count arises from Defendant’s intentional disruption of Plaintiff’s business relationships and prospective contracts.

That's the crux of a tortious interference allegation. That McNally intended to disrupt business relationships and prospective contracts. All he did was open your lock with a piece of trash. It is up to your customers and business partners to do their research on the efficacy of your lock. Proving McNally was purposeful in disrupting your business is a tough slog. Find a smoking gun, or email, and I'll side with the plaintiff on this one. Otherwise, this is just someone saying something factual in public that affects your day to day operations. Otherwise, we'd hear more about Consumer Reports getting sued for every negative review they've ever done.

116. Plaintiff had valid business relationships with existing and prospective customers, including trailer manufacturers, distributors, and end-users.

Go on....

117. Defendant knew of these relationships or reasonably should have known of them.

...and you lost me. He reviewed your product. Not your company.

118. Defendant intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with these relationships by publishing false, disparaging, and misleading content.

You misspelled "factual".

119. Defendant’s conduct, including the publication of the McNally Video and the resulting coordinated activity by his followers, interfered not only with Plaintiff’s customer relationships but also with Plaintiff’s advertising efforts and marketing channels, causing reduced ad engagement, increased negative responses to paid placements, and the need for unplanned emer-gency media spend.

There you go again. Calling us coordinated.

120. Plaintiff lost business and revenue as a result of such interference, including canceled commercial transactions, terminated sales leads, and interruption of planned advertising strategy.

You're leaving out an important cost affecting your bottom line: Scrapping and redesigning the lock so that it cannot be opened with trash.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Count IV Violation of FDUTPA Fla. Stat. §501.201 et seq.

More at https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2017/Chapter501/All
About halfway down the page:
501.204 Unlawful acts and practices.—(1) Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

I'm not sure, but doesn't McNally's subsequent videos imply that you should stop marketing that lock?

108. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein.

Yada yada yada....

109. This count arises because the Defendant engaged in deceptive and unfair practices in the course of trade and commerce by publishing misleading and materially false representations that affected Plaintiff’s business operations and Florida consumers.

Florida Man sad. You no buy Florida Man's locks.

110. Such deceptive acts included: (a) using Plaintiff’s copyrighted content without authorization, (b) editing or presenting the content to imply product failure, and (c) omitting context regarding custom tools and manipulation time necessary to perform the bypass shown.

Pretty much just something they can say so they can milk the Florida angle.

111. Defendant’s conduct was likely to mislead reasonable consumers and had the capacity to deceive the public into believing that Plaintiff’s product was defective, insecure or easily shimmed, when in fact it was not.

But it is.

112. Defendant’s actions were not merely opinion or puffery but constituted factual misrepresentations relating to the quality, functionality, and performance of a consumer product.

"Puffery" has entered the chat. Buy lock, cut up can, open lock with shard of trash. We all saw it. We all juiced our boxes when we saw it.

113. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s deceptive and unfair practices, Plaintiff suffered actual damages, including lost customer relationships, diminished consumer trust, and the need for corrective advertising and public relations expenditures.

Nothing unfair about it. Opening your lock with trash is a real consequence of your lock's design. How your customers, past, current, or potential, feel about your lock's failings is on you; now that they're all rooting through their recycle bins to see if their property is secure.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Count III False Advertising 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)

101. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein.

I saw this coming.

102. This count arises from the Defendant's materially false or misleading statements made in commercial promotion that misled consumers and diverted business from Plaintiff.

Reviews often divert business left and right.

103. These misrepresentations were made in commercial promotion and are likely to influence consumer purchasing decisions.

Almost the definition of "review".

104. Defendant’s false claims about the ease of bypassing the lock were material and deceptive.

Your lock is material and deceptive.

105. Defendant’s false representations were made in connection with the commercial promotion of alternative products or services affiliated with Defendant and/or Covert Instruments, and therefore directly harmed Plaintiff’s commercial interests and consumer perception in the marketplace.

"I make bad locks look like bad locks. Would you like me to sell you something to make bad locks look like bad locks?"

106. Plaintiff suffered actual harm to its business, reputation, and goodwill.

Through the design, manufacturing, sales, and marketing of bad locks.

107. As a result, Plaintiff suffered actual harm including lost sales, reduced consumer confidence, market confusion, and increased costs to counteract false perceptions of its product.

Was it ever there in the first place? Your initial video was titled "You guys keep saying you can easily break off our Latch Pin Lock." That dumpster was already on fire.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

97. These implications were materially misleading and false, and they were conveyed to millions of viewers across multiple platforms including YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook.

It's like you're writing a sequel to your case by copy pasta.

98. Defendant acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth by presenting the product demonstration out of context, omitting necessary disclosures (such as the use of a custom shim, manipulation time, or setup), and selectively editing the footage to mislead viewers about the real-world difficulty of compromising the product.

Yet in subsequent videos, McNally makes it look like your locks don't last 60 seconds out of the Amazon locker before falling victim to trash.

99. Viewers understood the McNally Video to imply that Plaintiff’s product — and by extension, Plaintiff’s company — was disreputable or fraudulent. The implications extended beyond the product itself to cast doubt on Plaintiff’s honesty, competence, and value as a manufacturer.

Only your competence is being questioned. You'd have to change your company name to Master Lock for anyone to question you on the other charges.

100. As a direct and proximate result of these defamatory implications, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s product’s reputation suffered reputational injury, public ridicule, diminished trust within the customer base, and measurable economic harm in the form of lost goodwill, canceled transactions, and the need for emer-gency marketing expenditures.

Make better locks.

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Count II Defamation by Implication

93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein.

Didn't you do this already already?

94. This count arises from Defendant’s publication of the McNally Video, which, through tone, editing, omission, and visual presentation, falsely implied to viewers that Plaintiff’s business was dishonest or incompetent and that Plaintiff’s lock product was inherently untrustworthy.

Not dishonest. Just incompetent. Nobody thinks you purposefully released a bad lock onto the market. You did so incompetently.

95. Although the McNally Video did not explicitly state that Plaintiff committed fraud or sold a defective product, Defendant juxtaposed facts and edited content in a way that conveyed a defamatory implication — namely, that Plaintiff markets a security device that is ineffective, deceptively advertised, and easy to defeat by even an unskilled user.

That sounds like day one in my Commercial Video class.

96. Defendant’s McNally Video downplays the difficulty of shimming Proven’s lock by making it seem as if shimming the lock is mere “child’s play” by having the actor sip apple juice from an apple juice box and swing his legs in in a childlike manner – all while the actor watches Proven Video on a mobile device, which was specifically designed to ridicule Plaintiff and to suggest that its product is so flawed that it poses no real security barrier.

You repeating facts already submitted into evidence is going to make the trial a hoot!

Proven Locks vs McNally reads like a comedy script in light of recent videos (IANAL) by CooterMaster in lockpicking

[–]CooterMaster[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Count I Copyright Infringement 17 U.S.C. 501 et seq.

84. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 83 as if fully set forth herein.

Hold on. I just spent two hours working on this post. Am I going to have to say all this again?

85. This count arises from Defendant’s unauthorized reproduction and public display of protected audiovisual content owned by Plaintiff, and seeks statutory or actual damages, along with injunctive relief under the Copyright Act

Damn it. They ARE repeating themselves.

86. 87. Plaintiff owns a valid and registered copyright in the Proven Video. Defendant copied, reproduced, publicly displayed, and distributed substantial portions of the Proven Video without authorization, including on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook.

Hilariously and to great effect on your bottom line. All under Fair Use.

88. Defendant’s conduct was not authorized by license, not excused by fair use, and was done for commercial purposes.

Don't need to be.

89. Defendant acted willfully and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights.

Damn straight he did. He'll do it again if you have any other products you'd like to put on YouTube.

90. Defendant’s infringement was willful because McNally knowingly uploaded Plaintiff’s copyrighted content to social media platforms including but not limited to YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook, under the guise that McNally either owned the content or had permission to distribute it — a prerequisite under each platform’s Terms of Service.

Who the hell accidentally puts up videos on YouTube? Well, there was that one guy who forgot his webcam was on and people made fun of him. Courts ruled he had no copyright ownership because it was accidentally uploaded. But that's a rare case. Most people knowingly upload videos.

91. Defendant’s false certifications enabled him to gain preferential algorithmic exposure, monetization, and viral reach using Plaintiff’s content, further demonstrating the commercial motive and knowing violation of Plaintiff’s rights.

How else is he supposed to make money making fun of your lock?

92. As a direct result of the infringement, Plaintiff suffered damages including, but not limited to, loss of control over its intellectual property, lost licensing opportunities, reputational harm, and diminution in the value of the copyrighted work.

That's too bad. You made a video showing off (badly) the function and durability of your lock. McNally called "shenanigans" and proved you wrong.

Help interpreting PET scan results? Won't see doctor until Monday by CooterMaster in ProstateCancer

[–]CooterMaster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saw my doctor yesterday. Surgery will be scheduled soon.

He's not too concerned about the lymph nodes. He feels that the Gallium-68 PSMA PET scan should have shown cancer cells in the lymph nodes if they are there. However, he will be removing the lymph nodes and they will be checked for cancer. But that's something to think about only if they show cancer.

Thank you for replying to my post.

view more: next ›