hbomberguy / Harry "Harris" Brewis / Slazenger Rapemachine Whiteshaf - "Rational" SJW, former SA goon/LPer, sexual harassment apologist, raised $350K+ for child abuse cult

[Haramburger]

It's amazing to me just how lazy content creators are in general, because the bar to protect yourself from hitpiece videos like this one is incredibly low. Whenever you listen to a normal main-line episode of Last Podcast On The Left about, say, the recent Necrophilia episode, the main researcher Marcus always gives the sources up front before the main script begins. In this case, they cite a criminal law book that outlines the 10 progressive stages of necrophilia as a paraphilia(an abnormal sexual desire) and examples, and the 2 hour episode touches on all 10 distinctions with examples cited from the book with jokes/banter livening it up. You don't even have to do a good job necessarily in transforming content, you simply have to make the attempt, and cite sources. It's that easy.

The cool dude thing to do from IH's point of view is give credit, cash, or both. He profited from someone else's work, and didn't give credit or cash initially. When you're caught, you don't owe the audience of gawkers anything legally, but in the Court of Public Opinion it looks pretty bad. Just slip the original author a late nod, or pay him enough to tweet "we're cool, it's straightened out, stand-up chap."

Insufferable as he is, hbomberguy has the correct take, but the incorrect body type and sexuality. I don't have strong feelings about IH so it's not like I'm going to hound him for an apology or proof of righting the wrongs, I'm too invested in Zoe Quinn someday admitting all her Gamergate wrongs to have bandwidth for plagiarism, DMCA, fair use or copyright law.

 

[Mr. Manchester]

I'm in about an hour in and it's not the most entertaining thing I've seen but he makes good points. I guess people steal shit a bunch which isn't much a surprise, especially because a lot of this is about people that review video games. He's got a good presentation style though but I'm not outraged yet but then again I'm also not surprised by any of this. If anything I want to just start blatantly stealing shit and not apologizing for it, use AI to read the articles to just go as hard as possible.

 

[Spaceman Spud]

His Dark Souls 2 video where he spends half of it either misquoting or flat out lying about the statements matthewmetosis makes in order to "destroy" him are enough to throw up any red flags, because if he'll do that to some eurofag who disagrees with him on Dark souls, what will he do to some evil chud who he politically disagrees with.

Can't quote Getting Sentimental's exact post but I wanted to comment on this.
Hbomberguy's attack on Matthewmatosis's Dark Souls 2 critique is filled with so much horseshit it's infuriating. the worst part is after when he attacks someone his fanbase will CONSTANTLY harass that creator for years (In this case a full blown decade). Even now you can go into the comments on Matthew's video, sort by new, and find one of Harris's weenies repeating one of his lies.

 

[Retink Retunk]

That's not true.

Imagine that someone writes a script for a movie and publishes it online as part of their online resume`. Then someone finds the script and actually produces that movie. Do you believe that by adding value to the script they have not stolen the script? Obviously not! That movie is the reserved market of the scriptwriter and he is entitled to compensation for his work.

If someone writes an article and someone narrates it and adds a cheap animation to it for a video that serves the same exact purpose of the article (which is telling the story of the cave diver), then it is not transformative. The animation and narration of the script is a reserved market for the original authors.


Criticism is inherently more transformative than a faithful adaptation. If someone took a very bad script and narrated it crudely with animations mocking the original author and his story, that's a different market than the original. Criticism and ridicule are protected forms of speech.

This is one of the most important and least understood parts of fair use. What really matters is the market: who consumes the end product.

So would a Let's Play be considered infringing if the person playing does not provide criticism, rather they provide a layer of their personality over the game they play? As in that case the story and video content would not be altered, and the person is not commentating on the game specifically, just behaving while playing it?

This isn't to be argumentative, just wondering.

 

[Michael Bluth]

I gotta say, Todd's video was way more interesting...James being a habitual liar is far funnier and weirder than stealing from other faggots

some of the lies that homo made are just...wtf? why? Some of the shit is easily verifiable as Todd showed..so why the fuck lie? The stan lee one about gwen stacy got a chuckle, cause I'm not even a comic guy like that, ad I knew that shit from passively hearing about it.

 

[Pseudo Apollodorus]

Why there are so many retards in this thread talking about IH? Okay, he might have plagiarized or not... whatever.
50% of the video is dedicated to James Somerton and he is a away bigger lolcow. The guy was plagiarizing scripts for movies.

People like Internet Historian, he makes decent videos and he's somewhat entertaining, which is why it's very saddening to see him blithely rip off a very well-written article created by someone who did lots of research.

I don't think I've seen anyone here express any disappointment about Somerton being revealed as a lying, thieving moron. He was (and remains) an immensely annoying retard who made essayslop for the lowest common denominator. Most people just hear "faggot steals from other fags, is exposed as a fraud by the High Homo."

 

[Fluoxetine Man]

@Null Is there anything Internet Historian had done in the past that made you so poised against him?

Quick, see if Internet Historian did a In The Field video with Sumito about cheese!

Spoiler

 

[Null]

So would a Let's Play be considered infringing if the person playing does not provide criticism, rather they provide a layer of their personality over the game they play? As in that case the story and video content would not be altered, and the person is not commentating on the game specifically, just behaving while playing it?

This isn't to be argumentative, just wondering.

This is grey area. Nintendo says they own the footage.

I believe that video games are an interactive experience and a person's playthrough a single permutation of all possible actions to be taken in a game + whatever else the person playing adds to the footage. It's very rare that a person's playthrough is actually a valid substitute for the interactive medium, where watching someone play through a game is the same kind of gratification you'd get playing it yourself.

 

[Retink Retunk]

This is grey area. Nintendo says they own the footage.

I believe that video games are an interactive experience and a person's playthrough a single permutation of all possible actions to be taken in a game + whatever else the person playing adds to the footage. It's very rare that a person's playthrough is actually a valid substitute for the interactive medium, where watching someone play through a game is the same kind of gratification you'd get playing it yourself.

That's a reasonable take, though it would be interesting to see how much something like that influences single player games where the story plays a larger part. I want to say I have less desire to play games after watching someone else play it, even if there are multiple paths, but that's not exactly quantifiable as I can't easily say what the exact chance of me playing the game before that was either.

 

[Wash away the rain]

Doesn't really matter, since he has not credited many of his other video from the source. I think this is huge issue in the YouTuber community when they have done research and don't cite their sources. I remember 7 years ago GradeAUnderA made a video on Matthew Santoro top 10 video that were popular at the time, but did not crediting his source world for world from a wikipedia article. Matthew has lost subs and has not gain more than a million views. A lot of YouTube like CountDankula, True Crime community, AlternateHistoryHub, and many History other channel community, and science community channel needs to cited there source or else they can get in a lot of trouble. Even in college when doing essay or research you always cite the source to be safe then sorry.

You sound like a faggot it’s an entertainment content creator not a fucking book report Sargon, please call up the academics to debate how much of your own fart gas you can huff before you smell like shit forever.

 

[inception_state]

That's not true.

Imagine that someone writes a script for a movie and publishes it online as part of their online resume`. Then someone finds the script and actually produces that movie. Do you believe that by adding value to the script they have not stolen the script? Obviously not! That movie is the reserved market of the scriptwriter and he is entitled to compensation for his work.

If someone writes an article and someone narrates it and adds a cheap animation to it for a video that serves the same exact purpose of the article (which is telling the story of the cave diver), then it is not transformative. The animation and narration of the script is a reserved market for the original authors.


Criticism is inherently more transformative than a faithful adaptation. If someone took a very bad script and narrated it crudely with animations mocking the original author and his story, that's a different market than the original. Criticism and ridicule are protected forms of speech.

This is one of the most important and least understood parts of fair use. What really matters is the market: who consumes the end product.

Not a copyright lawyer, but I'd lean towards it being fair use. Going through the four factor test:

The purpose and character of your use
- IH added new expression and meaning by adding voice-over, animations, and other elements.
- Value was added to the original through this, and most people watch IH for the entertaining narration style, animation, humor, etc. Not for the script.
- Arguably the purpose is educational, since IH was educating his millions of followers about a real, significant historical event.

This one favors IH in my opinion.

The nature of the copyrighted work
- The copyrighted work was a non-fiction article describing historical events.
- The article is itself a secondary work synthesizing primary and secondary historical sources.

The dissemination of facts and information benefits the public, so this one is clearly in IH's favor.

The amount and substantiality of the portion taken
- This one favors Mental Floss, since it seems like a substantial portion of their work was used.

The effect of the use upon the potential market.
- The market of people who want to watch an entertaining YouTube video with voice-over narration, jokes, and animations is significantly different than the market of people who read long non-fiction articles.
- There might be some overlap, but I'd say this one leans towards IH, since it's a very different medium with a very different audience in terms of age, education, media consumption habits, etc. I think it would be pretty easy for a lawyer to substantiate this with polling or something. 20 year old zoomers don't read.

So I'd give IH 3/4.

Then we have the hidden final factor that guarantees IH's moral high ground:

Edit: it was stupid to get himself into this situation in the first place though. I bet he could have gotten permission with a 5 minute email and offering to put a link to the article in the video description.

 

[No One of Note]

It's hard to throw your weight behind any of HB's positions, even the reasonable ones, when he's in bed with leeches like Hasan and orgs like Mermaids and then you have his supporters that are doing their best to create a casus belli against someone who's talented and popular. It happened with JonTron and Pewdiepie and I hope they fail against IH too.


https://twitter.com/stopskeletons/status/1731796124955242775 (A)

 

[FILTH Tourist]

What if the IH video was originally sponsored by MF for him to read and animate one of their articles and the deal fell though? It is normal for people to release the video anyway with small edits and the sponsor part cut to recover the time, effort, and money that went into the video. That would explain why the video was so close to the article and the lack of citations in it, as that would be free advertising for them. At the start of the original video, there was a disclaimer that was basically, "This meets free use and does not need citations." which means that it was intentional on their part to omit the source. (which is out of IH's MO as he is pretty good about sources in videos.)

It would also explain why the controversy was so quiet and dealt with behind closed doors, as it was official business between IH and MF. It wouldn't look good for advertisers if they put content makers on blast for behind the scene stuff. If it was just out-and-out plagiarism where then I think MF would make more of a stink and more legal action besides a few emails and a changed video.

 

[SBG]

Its a huge fucking nothing burger, he only did it to take pot shots at IH. I don't know why? Maybe because he is jealous of his fans or something IDK.

He should have dedicated time to Hasan Piker. Faggot just sits there and does nothing with content.

He likely took the pot shot at IH because he figured it was a sort of right wing instance of plagiarism and it's not like he's going to go after breadtubers.

He also needed different shit to pad the runtime with when it's really not necessary to take four hours to point out people didn't cite correctly or plagiarized. You could do that in maybe 15 minutes, which looking through his videos he has actually done before. So this isn't a fresh take from him, it's him trying to make a video as long as humanly possible to help with youtube revenue.

I saw someone say he was claiming he's give revenue from the video to random people, but is there even a way to differentiate revenue from different videos? Doesn't it all go in one pot?

 

[MeltyTW]

It's hard to throw your weight behind any of HB's positions, even the reasonable ones, when he's in bed with leeches like Hasan and orgs like Mermaids and then you have his supporters that are doing their best to create a casus belli against someone who's talented and popular. It happened with JonTron and Pewdiepie and I hope they fail against IH too.

View attachment 5542990
https://twitter.com/stopskeletons/status/1731796124955242775 (A)

thats exactly it, if it were someone who wasnt trying to get people cancelled over weed jokes willfully misinterpreted as a dogwhistle then yeah itd be a big deal, and it still is worth discussing if it werent for the fact all it does now it help these fags and tell everyone "hey best not say the nigger word or its okay to want you hated and miserable and broke before you and your family die" thats what this is about not the weaselly shit they hide behind as seen by his endorsement of thieving sand nigger hasan

 

[Oilspill Battery]

Not a copyright lawyer, but I'd lean towards it being fair use. Going through the four factor test:

I feel like arguing on the hyperspecifics of copyright and trademark law is kinda pointless since this is more about whether or not what he did passes the vibe check or not. If you wrote a script and published it and someone turned it into a movie without crediting you would be rightfuly angry and feel stolen from.

I understand that this is a real historical event and there's only so many ways you can retell it, you can beat around the bush, but at the end of the day it wouldn't have been hard for IH to at bare minimum credit the original author since he obviously used the script. (Unless the author himself just used a book that had the very same phrasing)

Its not like he is reluctant when it comes to crediting before, and we know he can write his own stuff which is what makes this whole thing so much more weirder/stupider.

 

[LawTwitter is Dumb]

I feel like arguing on the hyperspecifics of copyright and trademark law is kinda pointless since this is more about whether or not what he did passes the vibe check or not. If you wrote a script and published it and someone turned it into a movie without crediting you would be rightfuly angry and feel stolen from.

I understand that this is a real historical event and there's only so many ways you can retell it, you can beat around the bush, but at the end of the day it wouldn't have been hard for IH to at bare minimum credit the original author since he obviously used the script. (Unless the author himself just used a book that had the very same phrasing)

Its not like he is reluctant when it comes to crediting before, and we know he can write his own stuff which is what makes this whole thing so much more weirder/stupider.

"He could have...." "He shouldn't of..."

Well he didn't, so what's the point of bringing that up at all? It's been resolved months ago either way.

 

[Smar Mijou]

Nobody argued otherwise. My point is that he should have bought the rights using the hundreds of thousands of dollars he made off the video. Instead, he decided to keep that money, deprive the authors, remove the video people loved (in part because of the writing of the original authors), and then upload an inferior version.

Admittedly not watching the video, the original video subject to all the sperging, or giving a single flying fuck about any of these literally-who Jewtubers, I find it hard to believe that he made "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from a single video. I know its all speculative and shrouded in secrecy and favortism, but This link says up to $6K per million views on a video, and others have said $1k-$3K per million, so the real amount is likely somewhere in between. That's not including any patreon, superchat, or other in-video ad sheckels though. But looking at the channel, his uploads, at least for the past few years, are sporadic, and less than 4 million views per video, so IDK if "hundreds of thousands " is a realistic amount. Realistically, I see your original point about the plagiarism, regardless of the faggots involved, but the DMCA and a behind the scenes settlement (if it happened) with the video re-upload is probably more worthwhile than evem considering getting LOL-yers involved.

They don't like it when other people burst the bubble either. They can't fathom having gay people existing outside the alphabet sphere and being critical of other gays. That hurts every narrative surrounding the progressive stack.

Same thing when troons absolutely seethe over detransitioners after they realize the wool has been pulled over their eyes.

Internet Historian isn't some esteemed academic writing a dissertation, pull that pretentious "plagiarism" faggotry from your vocabulary. To me, it's no different than those faggy-ass redditors who scream "Source" Everytime you present an opinion

My thoughts exactly. These people are fucking YouTubers. Other than Todd In The Shadows, fat pajeet/cuck that he is, I actually like his videos on one-hit wonders, I've never heard of any of these people outside of The Farms. They're ALL literally low-level entertainment and distraction/background noise, and not worth putting real emotional investment and time into, much less copious pages of sperging on an infamous Internet Hate Forum.

This is grey area. Nintendo says they own the footage.

I believe that video games are an interactive experience and a person's playthrough a single permutation of all possible actions to be taken in a game + whatever else the person playing adds to the footage. It's very rare that a person's playthrough is actually a valid substitute for the interactive medium, where watching someone play through a game is the same kind of gratification you'd get playing it yourself.

Nintendo is another big copyright/DMCA abuser like Disney that I sperged about earlier. Only they can't see the forest for the trees, as their lane is much more niche. Their takedown, especially of Let's Plays and Smash tournaments are only hurting themselves in the long run more than Disney IMO. Gamers aren't out selling Mario knockoffs and trying to "dilute the brand", they just want to have fun and play thir games. However I feel that your argument is the one I would make to fight them in an actual legal battle. DMCA abuse is rampant, and because of the precedent set, and their battalion of lawyers, most people just back off because they can't afford the legal battle. What gets most of the gamers is the "copyrighted music" DMCA bullshit, which, again, I would agree is fair use and part of an interactive experience. And more importantly, no provable damages or material harm to Nintendo is happening.

 

[Philier]

When I saw IH name on the video I thought it meant IH was was friends with this faggot. Good to see this homo is just shitflinging instead. I doubt this will affect IH much. Especially since he seems to colab with a lot of people who don't buy into this testicle looking retard ideology. I'm guessing he's mad IH is making videos with people like JonTron or Wendigoon.

 

[Sicko Hunter]

It's hard to throw your weight behind any of HB's positions, even the reasonable ones, when he's in bed with leeches like Hasan and orgs like Mermaids and then you have his supporters that are doing their best to create a casus belli against someone who's talented and popular. It happened with JonTron and Pewdiepie and I hope they fail against IH too.

View attachment 5542990
https://twitter.com/stopskeletons/status/1731796124955242775 (A)

I would bet actual money this was just a dumb 420 WEED XD shitpost reference not a Hitler one. Even if it was a Hitler reference so fucking what? Let people have fun you puritanical fucking faggots.