I feel bad for the people who wanted to talk about Hbomberguy.
There's like an Autistic Nuclear Fission theory that happens here.
AND IMMA GONNA KICK SOME MORE ATOMS!
TL(azy);DR :
- He finds it "very hurtful" that IH jacked his shit, because he spent a month writing it and did a load of research
- He knows the first video got taken down, but didn't know it was reuploaded
- IH did not and has never contacted him directly, and to his knowledge never contacted Mental Floss (the article publisher) either. Apparently Mental Floss's lawyers contacted IH after they saw the video but he doesn't know what was discussed.
Lets open up with this, since if true, this pretty much makes it truth that IH never bothered contacting the original source of it. Interesting part is that the Mental Floss lawyers contacted him and they either reached an agreement which involved crediting and transforming, or negotiations failed and IH went with transform and reupload. With this on the table I'm going with option number 2.
Some choice quotes relevant to this
Or, more likely, IH realized that trying to fight a corporate entity with far more money and resources than he could ever dream of wasn't worth it. Mental Floss is owned by Minute Media who have a nine-figure annual revenue and hundreds of people. They also have an R&D center in Israel. Mmm.
So, it's more likely that IH just thought it was easier to just cut his losses, edit the video, and move on instead of either getting a strike on his video or involving the legal system on a fucking Youtube video.
It's called "picking your fights".
Could definitely be a "these guys threatened me, I don't think it's DMCA worthy, but I don't want to risk it"
Frankly, I'm starting to think IH is retarded because giving credit to someone else seems like it should have been the easiest and simplest thing to do
He did end up giving credit, but that's after the takeddown and reupload, we do know that he never contacted the original author and the only interactions were with Mental Floss. I can only assume this was an oversight on the original upload purely on pragmatic terms and how IH has been good with sourcing in prior videos.
I think Null suspects that the person he plagiarized isn't happy with what happened, or at least no longer has the power to be unhappy about it because IH sidestepped the issue by taking the original video down and replacing it with a non-infringing, supposedly inferior equivalent (there is no difference in quality between the two versions of the video).
I don't discount spite being a part of it where IH thought that Mental Floss/the original authors were faggots (angle I'm completely fine with as well mind you) decided to be transformative enough to avoid any sort of shit and gave the link to the source as an extra "safety net" to shut up retards on the internet
Now having established that yes, I do believe plagiarism has happened, I shall proceed to kick the hornets nest.
He made a good point and too many retards are just going to ignore his good point because they literally cannot put aside personal opinions of the people involved long enough to be objective. Old Kiwi Farms probably could have.
Possibly, but hating somebody will always color the perception of a figure. I cannot fathom watching the Hguy for more than 5 minutes, but with the back and forth I can agree that IH did plagiarize. What I do find peculiar is that this specific case set you up so much that you had to hammer and hammer and hammer it like if this suddenly makes IH the scum of the earth that should burn in hell, when there are much more egregious examples of this. I imagine it's because of this...
He's right and it's really gross seeing people dickride yet another fucking e-daddy.
and I luv him very much and am updating my birth certificate at this moment.
But you really do get irate when it comes to this shit. You really mellowed out on Metokur after you had your stream with him, but before that anything related to that really set you off. Yes, there is too much adoration to grifters and internet funny people, but you need more chill, you going full Jihad whenever somebody mildly hits your crosshairs is probably one of the reasons you have a hard time getting people to actually stick up for you when shit goes down, today Josh is a buddy, tomorrow he is your main critic (this does NOT mean that Rekieta is suddenly not a sponge brained retard mind you). It's kind of your curse, I like how you are full of conviction in what you do and it's honestly the only reason I can imagine why you fight so hard to keep the site up, but that also makes you pretty abrasive, I can definitely enjoy you as a content producer, I'm not so sure how hard it would be to be a close friend of yours (or put in nicer terms, cherish the real friends that you may have).
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.
I see you mention the hundreds of thousands point a lot of times in here. Only thing I know about Youtube money is that it pays a lot less now than it did prior. Also, yes, a chunk of the script was plagiarized, but how much of that is the value of the whole? I've seen the video twice, pretty sure before and after and maybe I just lack autism, but I don't remember noticing any grating differences except maybe a couple of moments. I wouldn't say it was a particularly inferior version. I may just be an easilly amused midwit and my focus is on the presentation more than anything though, so nothing really made me go "heeey wait a minute" except once.
Though at the end of it, it's a numbers game. What costs me more, to get the gang back together, record some lines and reupload, or pay the other party for a "percieved" value that I fail to see how you actually quantify, specially after the video has been out and made money. Should I pay you 10% of the revenue now that we know it's kino when you would have accepted a 50 buck coupon before the video maybe? Does the original author even have a right to do this negotiation since the actual owner is Mental Floss now? In that case, I perfectly understand just transforming shit because fuck agregators. Hell, maybe he just thought they were all faggots and it was preferible enough to transform and reupload.
What I do believe is the REAL reason this shit pisses you off so much is that it hits very close to home due to how everyone and their mother uses the farms, but almost nobody actually states it out loud because of the consequences that come from this and since you are the villian it's fine to ignore you as a source, hell, it's punching natzis! And this is just about mentions, nobody will ever send you a check or feel obliged to it by sourcing the farms because you have been deemed as the greatest evil and everyone knows that stealing shit from bad people is fine. I definitely can understand why this particular case and all of us going "BUT ACSHUALLLY!" about this shit because we like IH could set you of, but one of these things is not really that much like the other I'd say.
nope. you can't just steal someone's shit and then say that they weren't popular anyways. that's not a defense, legally or ethically. might does not make right.
as mentioned before, narrating an article (thus converting the medium from written to audio) is not a fair use. that is a reserved market.
I mean, Might does make right, we see it constantly. Copyright is a joke purely on lobbying from that and just by going on the soyfaggot that is the main topic of this thread we already see that he's applying the cudgel in different ways for different targets. It's rules for thee and not for me, shit as old as time and something that also has to fight against the layers of the "market of ideas" where me liking IH makes me go "OK, it's kind of scummy, but it's not anything I would call a deal breaker" and me thinking Hassan is a faggot makes me think "of course the guy is scum", though here we are ignoring that Hassan is an habitual plagiarist while IH seems to mostly properly credit things and after the autists have gone through a fine comb, haven't found a case nearly as egregious as the cave story.
My point is that the world of law is a perpetual joke just in general, the shit you go through on a regular basis is living proof of it. It gets extra dicey with something like plagiarism that by moving a few words and commas around it's suddenly kino, and something that is almost impossible to prove in court.
I mean
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.
I would expect as much but then this post intrigued me
I just want to point out that the SpongeBob SquarePants Rehydrated fan film got DMCA'd by Viacom and they fought and won. It's literally a 1:1 recreation of the first movie. Same script. Same stuff happens in the same order. It's just been completely reanimated by different animators that switch every few minutes. They also redid all the VA and music (although the music sounds very similar to the original). I'm just saying. If that's fair use I fail to see how IH's video isn't.
If this is considered fair use from a legal standpoint for being transformative enough, doesn't that make any script "stealable". Important to note I'm only referencing this post since I found it interesting and I'm not aware if this video was monetized or not.
Or he could just compensate the authors he ripped off.
Maybe they considered it transformative enough as per the prior spongebob quote. Also, would the author be the original writer or Mental Floss? Most likely case to me is that the original crediting missing was an oversight, since the moment that it was reuploaded with a more differentiated script, there is no need to credit anymore yet it was added. I'm also convinced they very much prefered to not give a fucking penny to Mental Floss and keep it in house by paying his budies and team to do some extra takes. The original author never came into the equation which is why I think Mental Floss are the current owners of the story. Could they have reached to the original author? Yes definitely, is there any legal need? No, if I understand right, all discussions would stop with Mental Floss from a legal standpoint and I imagine the IH only cared about that angle.
The course of IH went like this:
1. Internet Historian uploads his video.
2. Mental Floss submitted a DMCA.
3. YouTube struck the video.
4. Internet Historian realized their DMCA was valid and never filed a counter-DMCA.
5. Internet Historian edited his video and reuploaded it without contesting the strike to avoid claims of infringement.
He did not counter it. He did not submit under penalty of perjury that he had a good faith belief his content was a fair use of the original article. He agreed that he had infringed their copyright and did not fight it.
And well, one angle that I've seen mentioned prior is if they stuck with their guns and gone for a counter-DMCA if this might not have forced his hand on his anonymity.
Nigger, what the fuck is wrong with you?
This is an easy answer. If a person doesn't want to get Doxxed its best to avoid lawsuits using an online persona, no matter how frivolous.
He is one of the few people I can think of that has managed to remain purely anonymous that I'm aware of, we only know the country he lives in. So I can see wanting to avoid any sort of process that could end up reaching a point where anonymity would get discarded. The guy must be heavilly autistic about this particular point and already kind of alluded to it in one of his Incognito channel skits. One of the reason the guy is hard to cancel or fuck with outside of him not engaging with the retardation is that nothing is really known outside of him being an edgy boy after all.
And now some other random shit I quoted while going through this dumpster fire.
Still IH fucked up, and I am very interested in how he handles it.
-He had the spotlight for 2 days. If he dindunuffin, why didn't he make a simple tweet saying it? Can't be that hard
Doing nothing, you never ever address these faggots because that only brings more problems, it never diffuses anything, it just shows that it got to you and gives more angles of attack. Nostalgia Critic had the winning play, you don't do anything, you don't address it, you don't engage with it, if your follower base is strong enough, it will just be yesterday's drama in a week or two and if it wasn't... well something else would have been the end of you. It would be completely different if there was a legal process or something that will get you fucked by the feds (reason why the Completionist can not really play this gambit as well).
Also, I don't expect the response to be a sobbing admital, more something like "I didn't want to pay a fucking penny to Mental Floss, so I preferred paying my buddies to get some extra takes".
It seems the issue has been resolved, and your only complaint is they didn't follow your ideal law standard no one on earth follows by directly buying the article in question off the journalist, who has already pawned it off to a literal content farm that mass produces literal slop content for the barely literate
Pretty much why I can't muster much of a fuck to give, realistically, I would have never read this on my own accord, and after watching the video... I still have zero interest of reading the source of the hourly timeline nor find out if the original true author wrote anything worth a damn. I watch IH for his editing, skits and jokes, that the video managed to have a pretty somber tone didn't stop it from being an IH video with the sort of content I watch him for. That the story had a certain weight on how it was narrated help on my enjoyment? Probably, would it suddenly become shit if it told the same story in a completely different way? I imagine I would still be amused by it. He managed to keep my attention talking about fucking wine for 30 minutes.
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.
Hell, what about Silent Lets Plays? Null already said it was a gray area, but the moment you are just playing the game in absolute silence, something like a Visual Novel just becomes like "playing the game" right then and there.
