What do you think about "reaction content" and "fair use"? - Given the spergery in the streaming and Youtube communities, share your opinion here

[Soggy paper straw]

What do you think about reaction content? This has gained traction as a debate topic among streamers and Youtubers. Josh even shared his opinion on it on MATI.

I do think broadly "fair use" is the correct way to go. You can use media content produced by others if your use is transformative.

What do you think?

If anything, I am sure we can agree that XQC is one of the dumbest humans on the planet

 

[03crep]

Anything should be allowed use by anyone for any purpose, fuck copyright

 

[Dynamite Bean]

Fair use is good but reaction "content" creators deserve the rope and are going to ruin shit for everyone because their gigantic lazy faggots

 

[Gog & Magog]

Reaction streamers ruin everything with their stupid comments and faces thus it is transformative and falls under fair use.

Anything should be allowed use by anyone for any purpose, fuck copyright

So any business ought to be allowed to use Lolcow LLC trademarks for any reason?

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

Just become a copyright abolitionist.

On YouTube, there's Content ID to siphon money off the reaction pond scum and give it to big corporations, but the pond scum get to persist and shill their patreons. But you have to be able to get into that program and I heard smaller creators can't do it.

Everywhere else, including Twitch, you could get away with a lot more until someone notices and hits you with a DMCA.

In theory, as long as the DMCA takedown notices are respected, can't you just violate copyright repeatedly, forever?

So any business ought to be allowed to use Lolcow LLC trademarks for any reason?

Trademark is a separate concept from copyright, although 03crep did say ANYTHING. I guess imaginary property (IP) abolitionists would be against trademarks.

 

[Soggy paper straw]

Anything should be allowed use by anyone for any purpose, fuck copyright

Sure fuck copyright, however in practice that means that big corporations will benefit more from it than everyone else.

What will be the incentive to produce anything artistic?

But you have to be able to get into that program and I heard smaller creators can't do it.

I don't the implementation (or the law) is perfect. However, I am not sure if being a full abolitionist is the way.
As a practical solution for youtube, an embedded system for reaction would be helpful and probably placate this controversy (if they care enough). However that would be the solution from a private company

I just think there is something in between "if you use 5 seconds of a song, all your earnings are now mine" and effectively piracy (which tbf I am not 100% against*)

Spoiler: Short OT

*I am very much against the impossibility to buy a copy you actually own in current year. Beyond that, I understand why piracy should not be encouraged legally, but I am against huge penalties for it.

 

[SentinentCloud]

To be fair, i don't want to see more copyright insanity going on, but pretending that "reaction" content makers are not simply lazy its supreme copium

 

[03crep]

So any business ought to be allowed to use Lolcow LLC trademarks for any reason?

Trademarks are not the same thing as copyright. Trademark is for protecting the identity of a business, which is an important thing for small business owners. I wholeheartedly support that. COPYRIGHT is for original creative works. Copyright ensures you have total control over how that work is distributed and used by others. Massive corporations use it to theoretically maximize sales figures by excuse of victimless crime. Crimes which they so exhaustingly overblow and use propaganda to misconstrue their impact on a particular industry (i.e. anti-piracy PSAs on DVDs). They do this while exploiting the actual creatives responsible for making the art.

 

[Ass to Ass]

Anything should be allowed use by anyone for any purpose, fuck copyright

Copyright is for landlubbers, piracy is the way forward

 

[Gog & Magog]

Trademark is for protecting the identity of a business, which is an important thing for small business owners. I wholeheartedly support that.

Why should small businesses not be allowed to protect their copyrights too?

 

[David Brown]

Intellectual property is not ontologically real. Given that, it's not surprise that people will devise ways to try and monetize anything and everything, and copyright law is part of that. Is it wrong to add DRM to a game, or watermark art to try and encourage people to pay for it? Nope. I'd never begrudge somebody introducing intrusive DRM into his products. I simply wouldn't buy it, unless I find it permissible like Steam. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with taking steps to circumvent DRM or watermarking. It's not my job to protect someone else's """""property""""". I see it like physical property: it doesn't matter if it's wrong to steal it. It's my job to protect and secure my physical property and take whatever steps necessary and possible to correct a disruption in that.

The law (which is just ritualized violent force) will of course play out however the way that the owners of the monopoly of violent force decide it will play out. No sense crying about it, just win where you can and suck it up otherwise.

 

[The Last Stand]

"Reaction content" nowadays boils down to having a trailer shrunk down in the corner while somebody pauses and comments on it.

Meanwhile, you cannot have ten seconds of a movie or TV show during a transformative essay or review. How fair is that?

 

[Osama Bin Laden]

actual opinion: i think reactions are fine as long as they are fair use/transformative/whatever term you want to use. people may not like it but I do think there is a genuine purpose to have them

doomer opinion: fuck copyright, i hope everyone rips off everyone. fuck disney, UMG (especially them), sony, and those stupid fucking foreign companies that decide that 5 seconds of your video is worth claiming all the money

 

[Saddam Hussain Obama]

Reaction streamers ruin everything with their stupid comments and faces thus it is transformative and falls under fair use.

So any business ought to be allowed to use Lolcow LLC trademarks for any reason?

Yes, and I'm going to make a lolcow LLC.

Just become a copyright abolitionist.

On YouTube, there's Content ID to siphon money off the reaction pond scum and give it to big corporations, but the pond scum get to persist and shill their patreons. But you have to be able to get into that program and I heard smaller creators can't do it.

Everywhere else, including Twitch, you could get away with a lot more until someone notices and hits you with a DMCA.

In theory, as long as the DMCA takedown notices are respected, can't you just violate copyright repeatedly, forever?


Trademark is a separate concept from copyright, although 03crep did say ANYTHING. I guess imaginary property (IP) abolitionists would be against trademarks.

imaginary property That's a genius term. I'm going to use that.

Sure fuck copyright, however in practice that means that big corporations will benefit more from it than everyone else.

What will be the incentive to produce anything artistic?

This is BS. The corporate interests that screw over artists are the only ones who benefit. Also, people used to make videos for fun, not money. I'm sick of people acting like they can't work a job flipping burgers.

 

[Soggy paper straw]

Also, people used to make videos for fun, not money. I'm sick of people acting like they can't work a job flipping burgers.

I was a Youtube early adopter and liked that era where videos were not made for money. However the practical implications of what you are saying is that YTers should not earn from the content they produce, while big companies should.

If you are saying nothing should have copyright (which I think is what you mean), I would like to know what would motivate people to create "art" (or "content")?

How fair is that?

Not at all.

To be fair, i don't want to see more copyright insanity going on, but pretending that "reaction" content makers are not simply lazy its supreme copium

I think the idea that there should be more a societal/stigma thing going on against reactions rather than a legal response has a lot of merit. I also think that some egregious reaction content should get DMCA strikes.

Is it wrong to add DRM to a game, or watermark art to try and encourage people to pay for it? Nope.

I would say it is wrong to not allow people to own a copy of your work when you sell it to them and advertise that they are buying a copy. If you are buying a digital copy of a song, but you can only use it within a platform or can only copy to X many devices, then you did not buy a copy of the song.

Crimes which they so exhaustingly overblow and use propaganda to misconstrue their impact on a particular industry

Agree to a degree. However imagine if someone wrote a blog, and then a big publisher comes in and copies the blog and never credits or any financial compensation to the writer. Imagine if there was no legal recourse for it. You could argue it happens anyway, so why bother? But I think the principle of the law is not wrong; it is of course not perfect.

 

[Pedophobe]

I think the current laws we have in place regarding this stuff are fine as is.

 

[David Brown]

Sure fuck copyright, however in practice that means that big corporations will benefit more from it than everyone else.

What will be the incentive to produce anything artistic?

I don't get this mentality. It's never been easier to produce AND pirate entertainment media and art of any kind yet somehow.... it still gets made. Explain that one to me. I haven't paid for music in years because it's all free on youtube. Despite this, new music gets produced and published every day.

 

[Soggy paper straw]

it still gets made

Piracy is still illegal; most people don't pirate things

Do you think piracy should be legal and copyright be completely abolished? Even creative commons licence does not allow using the work in another for-profit product.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

It's lazy, and the reaction idiots ruin the content and mooch on the creators. But it should be allowed. That shit is the price of freedom.

Also to call XQC retarded seems to be a huge understatement.

 

[Saddam Hussain Obama]

@Soggy paper straw It will not let me quote you, but my view is that no company or YouTuber should expect pay for YouTube. I don't care if they make a Patreon to get funds for them, but I just think people should make art for fun instead of for profit. Also, I would like to add that this is how it is already: most people don't make money from YouTube ads but rather from sponsors, patreons, merchandise, etc.