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

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

I think the fact that watching people fake reactions to things is so popular is a sad commentary on the state of society but at least it makes it easier for me to pirate shit

 

[AnsemSoD1]

I hope Critikal's head explodes, that's all I know.

 

[David Brown]

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.

If most people don't pirate things than I have nothing to worry about. My behavior doesn't actually affect anything. It's kind of like voting; it becomes a moral issue for people to bang on about because of propaganda, brainwashing, and superstition, not because it's actually effective. Gilens et al (2014) (link) already proved that public opinion measurably has no effect on policy.

As for the legality of piracy, it's not a high priority for me. If I had a legal magic wand that would be the last thing on my to-do list.

 

[Soggy paper straw]

most people don't make money from YouTube ads but rather from sponsors, patreons, merchandise, etc.

I would say that is because people widely recognise the value of a creative person sharing their artistic creations.
Would you not say that from that follows the idea that you should have a right to the creative product you made?

 

[Saddam Hussain Obama]

I would say that is because people widely recognise the value of a creative person sharing their artistic creations.
Would you not say that from that follows the idea that you should have a right to the creative product you made?

No, I would compare it to a street musician. People give them money because they find them entertaining, and I should be able to play their music and cover it whenever I want without issue.

 

[Soggy paper straw]

No, I would compare it to a street musician. People give them money because they find them entertaining, and I should be able to play their music and cover it whenever I want without issue.

Should you be able to record the musician and sell the recording without any problem?
If intellectual property becomes meaningless how can the original musician (let's assume it was an original song and not a cover for simplicity) claim on their patreon that they are the creator? Would that claim have any meaning? Would there be anything to prevent many other people from making that claim?

 

[Saddam Hussain Obama]

Should you be able to record the musician and sell the recording without any problem?
If intellectual property becomes meaningless how can the original musician (let's assume it was an original song and not a cover for simplicity) claim on their patreon that they are the creator? Would that claim have any meaning? Would there be anything to prevent many other people from making that claim?

I should be able to sell the recording. It's nice to shout them out, but the reality is they don't make money anyway.

 

[David Brown]

Should you be able to record the musician and sell the recording without any problem?
If intellectual property becomes meaningless how can the original musician (let's assume it was an original song and not a cover for simplicity) claim on their patreon that they are the creator? Would that claim have any meaning? Would there be anything to prevent many other people from making that claim?

What is the creator doing to secure his ownership? Why is it everyone else's responsibility to secure any other artist's """""""property""""""""?

 

[Soggy paper straw]

Why is it everyone else's responsibility to secure any other artist's """""""property""""""""?

Recognising copyright is, at a more base level, allowing someone to protect their intellectual property by recognising it as such

Why is intellectual property fundamentally different from physical property? It is simply because with technology you can make an infinite amount of copies?

 

[David Brown]

Why is intellectual property fundamentally different from physical property?

When physical property is stolen, someone is deprived of their property. They can show physically the place where the property has been removed without authorization. When information is copied, nobody is derived of that information. Show me on Dreamworks's server where their copy of Shrek is now missing because I downloaded it 82,000,000 times. If someone doesn't want information to be shared, they shouldn't share it. Like I said, millions of entertainment media are produced yearly despite the fact that making unauthorized copies of information has never been easier.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Seems copyright was originally invented as a form a censorship.

The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World – Question Copyright

With "fair use", if there's no "market harm" or "replaced sales" -- and it's for stuff like parody, reporting, or criticism -- then someone uploading "reaction content" should be "fair use" in Burgerland. But there is no "fair use" in a number of other countries.