LegalEagle is a channel by Devin J. Stone, a civil trial lawyer and legal educator. In this channel, he comments on the legal aspects of lawsuits and other events and situations, either in fiction...
LegalEagle is a channel by Devin J. Stone, a civil trial lawyer and legal educator.
In this channel, he comments on the legal aspects of lawsuits and other events and situations, either in fiction or reality. His videos are not meant as news, but rather as legal review.
I worry there's a fair bit of 'outsiders looking in' bias that really doesn't favour xQc, and I think for anyone who doesn't 'get it' then xQc becomes as easy target because of his erratic...
I worry there's a fair bit of 'outsiders looking in' bias that really doesn't favour xQc, and I think for anyone who doesn't 'get it' then xQc becomes as easy target because of his erratic behavior, quick talking, and unusual accent.
I don't watch xQc, but I like him. LeagleEagle is, of course, completely right on the issue, but I think it's poisoning the well when we roll our eyes at clips of him saying something that's hard to understand, or making a joke the target audience might not find funny. I think there's this underlying disgust towards a certain 'zoomer humour' or streaming in general that's underneath this whole debate - an 'I can't believe people are dumb enough to watch this guy' that makes suddenly caring about copyright law so appealing to people.
xQc's team shouldn't be uploading these videos to his YouTube, and xQc has done a terrible job defending/advocating for himself. But I don't think there's any kind of malicious grift directing xQc's actions, just indifference.
I do watch some streamers, and it's fun watching a video alongside them, often moreso than watching the video alone, and there's plenty of videos I likely wouldn't have watched otherwise. It's easy to be smug about 'parasocial' relationships, but I think as humans we crave someone to bounce our experiences off. For a lot of people, xQc is that crazy bud that enjoys the same things they do. I think it's becoming harder and harder to find that 'bud', and streaming is increasingly offering a solution to that.
Here in the UK we have a show called 'Gogglebox' where different people sit in the living room and react to what was on television that week. It makes for easy evening viewing, and my parents love it. It got ridiculed when it came out - who want want to watch other people watching the TV? As it turns out, pretty much everyone.
Arguably xQc's own statement defies this. Perhaps this LegalEagle video took it out of context or something, but the clip where xQc says his chat is bored if he interjects too much commentary is...
But I don't think there's any kind of malicious grift directing xQc's actions, just indifference.
Arguably xQc's own statement defies this. Perhaps this LegalEagle video took it out of context or something, but the clip where xQc says his chat is bored if he interjects too much commentary is proof that he's aware that his chat is being entertained by the original material more than they are him. He's recognizing an incentive to approach his streams this way, in effect a monetary incentive. Kick pays him $100 million because all of those people are watching and some of them presumably wouldn't be if he made watching less entertaining by interrupting the copyrighted material he's streaming.
And even if it was taken out of context, the context-free statement can still easily be constructed as admission of intention in front of a judge. After all, people forget that streaming is a...
And even if it was taken out of context, the context-free statement can still easily be constructed as admission of intention in front of a judge.
After all, people forget that streaming is a business. The persona being shown is just that, as is the entire lifestyle and design. It's all to make money. An influencer is no more "genuine" than a sales rep or a marketing designer. All extract money their audience by controlling and direction their interaction and how it impacts said audience.
So for Excuesee to actually state "Yeah my audience wants this" is actually him quite verbatim station this: I make better money if I let my audience watch copyrighted stuff on my channel. Which is, to put it mildly, a bold thing to openly admit. 😅
There's a lot of people that say that "just don't upload it to YouTube"... but he also shouldn't be watching in their entirety on stream, nor have a VoD containing those bits available (which is...
xQc's team shouldn't be uploading these videos to his YouTube
There's a lot of people that say that "just don't upload it to YouTube"... but he also shouldn't be watching in their entirety on stream, nor have a VoD containing those bits available (which is also the case). All of them are wrong legally.
(And in my opinion, morally too - the fair use law is actually really quite reasonable. The UK's variant of it is likely what enables Gogglebox).
I don't pay much attention to "generation wars", as in my opinion people tend to over-emphasize differences in order to (1) feel unique, (2) hate their perceived or imagined enemies. Everyone...
I don't pay much attention to "generation wars", as in my opinion people tend to over-emphasize differences in order to (1) feel unique, (2) hate their perceived or imagined enemies.
Everyone wanna be on a team. An essentialist approach to "generations" is like astrology for unbelievers.
In any case, I don't think this video in particular fell for that trope.
Less so a 'generation war' and more so a war of how we watch and engage with media. LegalEagle says in the video 'his borderline incoherent babbling' would provide as much 'incisive commentary' as...
Less so a 'generation war' and more so a war of how we watch and engage with media.
LegalEagle says in the video 'his borderline incoherent babbling' would provide as much 'incisive commentary' as his dog, and proceeds to call xQc 'garbage' with a graphic of xQc in a garbage bin at the dump.
We don't/can't all watch insightful and thoughtful media all of the time. xQc is goofy and fun, probably much like LegalEagle's dog. People love dogs.
Calling xQc 'garbage' sounds harsh, but it becomes more understandable when you consider his track record. This is the same guy who once promoted gambling to his young audience, subsequently...
Calling xQc 'garbage' sounds harsh, but it becomes more understandable when you consider his track record. This is the same guy who once promoted gambling to his young audience, subsequently apologized for it, criticized someone else for the same behavior, and then resumed with the promotion of gambling. There is nothing wrong with goofy entertainment, but at least pick someone who has morals and wouldn't literally say everything in the moment to get ahead. LegalEagle even mentions Ludwig as an example of goofy content done the morally right way.
The video also provides a few examples of content makers of the same generation (or close) which, in the author's opinion, are of good quality. I don't intend to shit on an entire generation. I...
The video also provides a few examples of content makers of the same generation (or close) which, in the author's opinion, are of good quality.
I don't intend to shit on an entire generation. I regularly watch good content from people of similar ages, and I do believe it is valid to say that xqc does not produce quality content.
But that is not a generational thing. Some things are just bad.
I can appreciate that personal taste shouldn't drive the decisions of the judge, but stating our opinions about content creators on an informal venue such as an internet forum seems pretty...
I can appreciate that personal taste shouldn't drive the decisions of the judge, but stating our opinions about content creators on an informal venue such as an internet forum seems pretty harmless to me. Isn't that what we do with every content? Why wouldn't I state my personal opinion on the content? That's an unrealistic standard. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not in court. I'm just a random dude stating opinions on the internet.
I think there lies a middle ground between being completely informal and a courtroom. Say we were talking about Ed Sheeran vs Marvin Gaye (as happened recently) and I said 'Marvin Gaye should lose...
I think there lies a middle ground between being completely informal and a courtroom. Say we were talking about Ed Sheeran vs Marvin Gaye (as happened recently) and I said 'Marvin Gaye should lose the case, and while I'm here I think his music is so bad it makes me wonder why they're even in court calling it music' - it might make you wonder if I want to talk about the intricacies of ownership law, or I just hate Marvin Gaye.
And hey, there's totally a place for both, it's whatever discussion you want to have. I just think it's important to separate the two thoughts in our heads, and that one shouldn't influence the other.
I wanted to share my view to empathise why someone might want to watch xQc, so we can hopefully get past that mental hurdle (that at least many in LegalEagle's comment section are stuck on).
Look, I believe some context is in order. This is a channel by a lawyer, about the law. This is not a channel for reviews of content creators. When the author talks about "babbling", he is doing...
Look, I believe some context is in order. This is a channel by a lawyer, about the law. This is not a channel for reviews of content creators. When the author talks about "babbling", he is doing so because it is important to characterize that the comment provided by xqc is not sufficient to expect a judge to rule in his favor under fair use. He is doing that based on the law, its application, and jurisprudence. Not his own tastes and opinions. I more than welcome your comments and observations about life, creativity, and generations. But this basic misunderstanding was taken way too far, leading to an extraneous discussion that is not at all about the content.
I made an effort to provide a top comment making the nature of the video clear, but for some reason, this subjetive misinterpretation of about 5 seconds of it dominated the discussion.
I'm not gonna lie, this is pretty frustrating. I actually like his legal reviews.
Didn't mean to frustrate, I appreciate you sharing the video and you taking the time to respond to my thoughts. I really enjoy LegalEagle, and I think this video does a great job explaining fair...
Didn't mean to frustrate, I appreciate you sharing the video and you taking the time to respond to my thoughts. I really enjoy LegalEagle, and I think this video does a great job explaining fair use in this increasingly relevant context of live streaming.
The point is that it isn't commentary, which is a key component of fair use. If you live streamed a dog "reacting" to a video then it wouldn't be commentary because a dog is incapable of making...
'his borderline incoherent babbling' would provide as much 'incisive commentary' as his dog
People love dogs.
The point is that it isn't commentary, which is a key component of fair use. If you live streamed a dog "reacting" to a video then it wouldn't be commentary because a dog is incapable of making commentary. It doesnt matter if people love your dog, its not fair use.
Similarly, if xQc is making incoherent non-word reactions then it can't be commentary.
We don't/can't all watch insightful and thoughtful media all of the time.
"Incisive commentary" doesn't have to be thoughtful, it can still be be goofy. I think the H3H3 "bold guy" reaction video was a good example of this back in its time. IIRC they largely just mocked the guy.
Interestingly though it may still be "transformative" - a very on the nose example sprung to mind of this pug who gets reactive at specific parts of Homeward Bound. The reaction is related to the...
Interestingly though it may still be "transformative" - a very on the nose example sprung to mind of this pug who gets reactive at specific parts of Homeward Bound. The reaction is related to the content, but the original content is not the focus.
This particular example is less than 3 minutes long, though, and I wager if you filmed the entire movie, you'd still potentially fall afoul of copyright law even if the dog was reacting to parts...
This particular example is less than 3 minutes long, though, and I wager if you filmed the entire movie, you'd still potentially fall afoul of copyright law even if the dog was reacting to parts of it. One of the elements of fair use is the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and that's a big factor that often weighs against reaction content.
When I used the expression "essentialist approach to generations", this is what I meant: the tendency to view people from different generations not merely as the result of their environment, but...
When I used the expression "essentialist approach to generations", this is what I meant: the tendency to view people from different generations not merely as the result of their environment, but rather as essentially distinct, exaggerating their differences in order to create the perception that they are opposed in a way that is fundamental, natural, and intrinsic to their very beings, in such a way that cannot be changed or reconciled.
xQc shouldn't be watching the videos on steam at all. It's against the law and is stealing. It's not just that he's also uploading the video, streaming them in the first place, especially with his...
xQc's team shouldn't be uploading these videos to his YouTube, and xQc has done a terrible job defending/advocating for himself.
xQc shouldn't be watching the videos on steam at all. It's against the law and is stealing. It's not just that he's also uploading the video, streaming them in the first place, especially with his level of "reaction" is inarguably copyright infringement
I don't think streaming is offering solutions to the problem of forming actual friendships. It's certainly taking their place for whole swathes of people, particularly young men. But that's not a...
I don't think streaming is offering solutions to the problem of forming actual friendships. It's certainly taking their place for whole swathes of people, particularly young men. But that's not a solution in any real sense; it's just a new, worse problem. Now we have whole groups of socially maladapted young men sinking into ever deeper rabbit holes. And they're still lonely, because following a streamer that doesn't know you was never going to fix that.
No one's being smug about this. This is a very bad thing that's happening.
I would have said - as such an outsider - that it's more because he does nothing really except some shittalking on the mental level of a 14y old. Seriously, I wouldn't know how to describe it any...
I worry there's a fair bit of 'outsiders looking in' bias that really doesn't favour xQc, and I think for anyone who doesn't 'get it' then xQc becomes as easy target because of his erratic behavior, quick talking, and unusual accent.
I would have said - as such an outsider - that it's more because he does nothing really except some shittalking on the mental level of a 14y old. Seriously, I wouldn't know how to describe it any more favorable.
Now of course, I know I know, "internet persona". But if your stick is that you act like someone I would not want to be around for the camera, then I still will not want you around if all I know is that camera-facing personality.
I do watch some streamers, and it's fun watching a video alongside them, often moreso than watching the video alone
Sidenote, this is something I absolutely cannot for the life of me understand. I don't need a non-expert's opinion on something unless I actually know the person on a personal friendship level (as in, their input is relevant to my everyday life as I might need to rely on their perspective or be able to reflect from it in the future). By their nature, "influencers" are not such a person.
And then it becomes a thing of:
They add nothing to the content.
They make the content harder to consume because they pause it, talk over it or at least show it in worse quality because they need to place all their ads around it and their face somewhere in the corner.
As evident from this case, they might be flat out stealing content and draining money from the people who did the actual work.
All resolved by just giving me a link to the actual content and making me consume it myself.
That is, sure, if I follow a person online they could get me to consume content I would not otherwise. However, I would want them to promote a link. "Hey, check this out!". Not sit in the corner and talk some bullshit while I'm trying to consume content.
Exceptions apply of course when they're experts giving expert advise. That's a very different situation, but beyond commenting on internet advertising and maybe influencing, influencers by their naturally cannot provide that.
Here in the UK we have a show called 'Gogglebox' where different people sit in the living room and react to what was on television that week. It makes for easy evening viewing, and my parents love it. It got ridiculed when it came out - who want want to watch other people watching the TV? As it turns out, pretty much everyone.
I kinda doubt that. Or rather, I doubt the content itself matters. As you say, it's "easy viewing", it's a way to shut the brain off while having background noise. I suspect to most people having that on, it's no different than when I have lyrics-less electronic music on while coding: Background noise is needed to keep the mind from wandering.
I would assume that neither the people in the show watching nor what they watch actually matters in the slightest. So long as the format is as forgettable as it is right now, they can swap out any individual part and it doesn't change the function.
And sure, maybe watching reaction videos is the same thing, but I don't think so. It seems people take this more serious, maybe out of some misguided belief that they have a social connection with the influencer instead of just being their way of generating their income - that is, the viewers are the actual product, as with any influencer.
If you're in the comment section of anything, you're doing exactly that. I think a lot of people here have made good points about the quality of xQc as a streamer that I don't dispute, whether or...
I don't need a non-expert's opinion on something unless I actually know the person on a personal friendship level
If you're in the comment section of anything, you're doing exactly that.
I think a lot of people here have made good points about the quality of xQc as a streamer that I don't dispute, whether or not that's relevant, but I don't think xQc should be held as the standard of live streaming. I'll just run down some points to hopefully shed light from my side of the aisle, as to why someone might want to watch a streamer -
The content streamers watch is typically informative. They're videos like LegalEagle - videos that are aimed at non-experts to inform non-experts, hopefully from an expert (like LegalEagle). A streamer might pause and talk about something you wouldn't have considered, or ask an interesting question, or go on a research tangent. I think that's a fun way to engage with content while learning something about the world.
The streamer themselves might not be an expert, but they often have access to experts. Streamers have wide appeal and connections, and it's not uncommon for a topic of discussion to lead to an invitation or request from an expert to appear on stream and talk to/challenge the streamer.
A good streamer's job would be to find relevant and interesting content to talk about, which makes it easier to access that content. I also listen to a lot of radio - it's not dissimilar to that style of broadcasting. It's something I put on at work when I don't want to choose a podcast. I like that I don't know what the subject matter of the day might be, and I think that helps expand my worldview.
There's a lot of bad everything wherever you look. There's ill-informed political demagogues who shout on the radio and television, there's people who write articles or books on subjects that they have no right to.
'React streaming' a big legal mess that the world needs to figure out, but it's an increasingly relevant format that's not completely worthless, and not going anywhere.
Note however that none of the three categories you list there are reaction videos from people like the Exquesee. All three of those categories meaningfully provide something, but reaction videos...
Note however that none of the three categories you list there are reaction videos from people like the Exquesee.
All three of those categories meaningfully provide something, but reaction videos in the category that is on display here are purely performative art where the content being used is essentially meaningless. If it becomes the focus, then it should not be - as evident by the fact that it might then just be illegal streaming of other's intellectual property.
And I agree, if it's about an expert commenting on something, a commentator that is among experts commenting on something or content discovery (which results in, say, posting a link here to something interesting so it can be consumed as-is instead of being overlaid by a franky pretty insultingly stupid influencer persona) are all valid reasons for an influencer to fair use someone else's content.
It's just that with a whole lot of these modern successful streaming-influencers like XKC, they're none of that. And might not in fact be fair use, which is kinda the point.
CGPGrey started filing some DMCA takedown notices against channels like these (including Ludwig, who was mentioned in the video as a good reactor). He balked at VloggingThroughHistory's...
CGPGrey started filing some DMCA takedown notices against channels like these (including Ludwig, who was mentioned in the video as a good reactor).
He balked at VloggingThroughHistory's counter-claim, which is a shame - yeah, he might pause and talk a lot more than, say, xQc, but holy hell, he still has no need to include the /entire/ video. Like, all that guy has to do is hire a video editor, or use some basic editing tool (like, Microsoft's ClipChamp would suffice) to trim out the bits where he is just nodding, and that channel would be fine. It's sincere laziness from YouTube content creators who wholesale rip-off other people's hard work.
Good on CGPGrey, I hope more creators get the courage to start copyright claiming these leeches. The top streamers are already incredibly overpaid for doing almost no real work, the fact that they...
Good on CGPGrey, I hope more creators get the courage to start copyright claiming these leeches. The top streamers are already incredibly overpaid for doing almost no real work, the fact that they think they're entitled to someone elses blood, sweat, and tears to "keep chat entertained while I make a sandwich" is peak narcissism.
Even Cinemasins, who do roughly the same thing to movies to churn out content, at least have the decency to edit the clips to "prove" whatever punchline they have.
Even Cinemasins, who do roughly the same thing to movies to churn out content, at least have the decency to edit the clips to "prove" whatever punchline they have.
I just want to point out that before this blew up with XQC's debate with H3, Hasanabi stole a video from a smaller creator while he left the stream to go eat. In fact Hasan had a very...
I just want to point out that before this blew up with XQC's debate with H3, Hasanabi stole a video from a smaller creator while he left the stream to go eat. In fact Hasan had a very uncomfortable chat with Ethan, his co-host on a regular show, because he couldn't attack or defend the practise without making himself look bad.
This is the video said creator, Jay Exci, made afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TVSfHbpR6k
I really don’t get why a streamer would leave the room to eat while the stream is still going. Why don’t they schedule their time so they don’t have to eat during it? Why can’t they bring snacks...
I really don’t get why a streamer would leave the room to eat while the stream is still going. Why don’t they schedule their time so they don’t have to eat during it? Why can’t they bring snacks so they don’t get hungry? I get that you might lose viewers if you end the stream while you eat, but that feels like a kind of shitty thing to do to an audience if you aren’t at least putting up a card that says you’ll be right back.
This practice of playing someone else’s copyrighted videos seems a pretty egregious example of copyright infringement. It just sounds like a dick move overall.
If you really, truly are reacting and making commentary/satire fully compliant within fair use (which is difficult with a full video and live viewing), then you should be pausing the video when...
If you really, truly are reacting and making commentary/satire fully compliant within fair use (which is difficult with a full video and live viewing), then you should be pausing the video when you walk away.
Being hungry or needing to use the bathroom is not a valid defense to copyright claims.
Change 'copyright' to 'profit right' and slide a cut of the revenue generated to any/all media that is covered by the reactors. By virtue of covering something, they share a slice of their revenue...
Change 'copyright' to 'profit right' and slide a cut of the revenue generated to any/all media that is covered by the reactors. By virtue of covering something, they share a slice of their revenue generated from their coverage of it. Solves most of the problems inherent in this silly business model. Let the hosting provider hash the payments out with the content owners, the conversation does not need to involve anyone else. This way, anyone can cover anything they like without worrying about takedowns, strikes, and the rest of the nonsense.
Why put the burden on the host if the reactor is the one violating the law? Asking permission from the original creator could result in licensing terms that include profit sharing if the creator...
Why put the burden on the host if the reactor is the one violating the law? Asking permission from the original creator could result in licensing terms that include profit sharing if the creator agrees to license the content. Asking permission, and respecting the rights of the original creator solves all copyright issues. If the reactor decides not to do that, and aren't covered by fair use then they should have to worry about take-downs, strikes, or lawsuits.
Regardless of the legality, I don't like cheering against the ability for content like this to exist. It's a lot of fun watching a streamer and chat channel you're participating in react to stuff...
Regardless of the legality, I don't like cheering against the ability for content like this to exist. It's a lot of fun watching a streamer and chat channel you're participating in react to stuff you're watching together. I don't think it's good when copyright gets in the way of kinds of content existing. Plenty of stuff I've liked such as game mods, vaporwave, and fanfiction have had trouble with copyright, and the world wouldn't be better if copyright won over them.
One of my favorite Twitch channels broadcasts random shows (including a lot of Star Trek and random amateur Trek fan films) late at night with an active chat room. It's too bad there isn't a legally-clear way to do this more freely. Twitch does support Prime Video watch parties, but it limits the streamer's ability to react/interject with the video content, has a limited selection, and only works for viewers with a Prime Video subscription.
I guess in the case of a streamer making a lot of money from the streams like xQc, it would be great if there was some way to direct some of his revenue to the stuff he rebroadcasts, but most ways I can imagine it working would put large limits on either small streamers who couldn't afford it or the content they could rebroadcast. It's hard for me to imagine a crackdown on this that results in revenue getting to the original video creators instead of blocking or providing a chilling effect on this content existing.
In this case the downside is quite a bit more sympathetic, though. Many of the youtube creators these streamers are crimping off of are very small - they're not exactly the usual monoliths we see...
In this case the downside is quite a bit more sympathetic, though. Many of the youtube creators these streamers are crimping off of are very small - they're not exactly the usual monoliths we see in copyright disputes. XQC taking, say, 30% of their audience could seriously make it financially unviable for them to continue when most teeter on the edge of financial insolvency in normal times.
Copyright does allow for a way for this to happen; content creators simply need to have licensing agreements where they get royalties from the streamers. There are ways to make this not as legally tedious as well - just like how all indies doesn't need a lawyer or do a bunch of paperwork for Unreal engine to take royalties from their releases.
I have strong opinions on this, since I see the examples in the video to be very clear cut which is rare in the world of fair use. I don't see myself as cheering for this content to go away, so...
I have strong opinions on this, since I see the examples in the video to be very clear cut which is rare in the world of fair use. I don't see myself as cheering for this content to go away, so much as standing by the rights of the people who put their time, effort, and money into creating the original work. We're not talking about Disney holding copyright on Steamboat Willie for 60 years after the artists and director died, or the Eagles blocking every video on YouTube with more than 3 notes of their songs in them.
To me its similar to an online version of a bar showing a boxing/UFC fight, except the bar hijacked a satellite feed instead of paying for the commercial license. Factors like it being a small bar, or the patrons really wanting to see the fight, or it being too much of a hassle don't absolve the owner of their right to their original work. Maybe they give a discount for a small audience, or have a min audience size before charging but that's still up to the owner of the work to decide and not the streamer.
LegalEagle is a channel by Devin J. Stone, a civil trial lawyer and legal educator.
In this channel, he comments on the legal aspects of lawsuits and other events and situations, either in fiction or reality. His videos are not meant as news, but rather as legal review.
I worry there's a fair bit of 'outsiders looking in' bias that really doesn't favour xQc, and I think for anyone who doesn't 'get it' then xQc becomes as easy target because of his erratic behavior, quick talking, and unusual accent.
I don't watch xQc, but I like him. LeagleEagle is, of course, completely right on the issue, but I think it's poisoning the well when we roll our eyes at clips of him saying something that's hard to understand, or making a joke the target audience might not find funny. I think there's this underlying disgust towards a certain 'zoomer humour' or streaming in general that's underneath this whole debate - an 'I can't believe people are dumb enough to watch this guy' that makes suddenly caring about copyright law so appealing to people.
xQc's team shouldn't be uploading these videos to his YouTube, and xQc has done a terrible job defending/advocating for himself. But I don't think there's any kind of malicious grift directing xQc's actions, just indifference.
I do watch some streamers, and it's fun watching a video alongside them, often moreso than watching the video alone, and there's plenty of videos I likely wouldn't have watched otherwise. It's easy to be smug about 'parasocial' relationships, but I think as humans we crave someone to bounce our experiences off. For a lot of people, xQc is that crazy bud that enjoys the same things they do. I think it's becoming harder and harder to find that 'bud', and streaming is increasingly offering a solution to that.
Here in the UK we have a show called 'Gogglebox' where different people sit in the living room and react to what was on television that week. It makes for easy evening viewing, and my parents love it. It got ridiculed when it came out - who want want to watch other people watching the TV? As it turns out, pretty much everyone.
Arguably xQc's own statement defies this. Perhaps this LegalEagle video took it out of context or something, but the clip where xQc says his chat is bored if he interjects too much commentary is proof that he's aware that his chat is being entertained by the original material more than they are him. He's recognizing an incentive to approach his streams this way, in effect a monetary incentive. Kick pays him $100 million because all of those people are watching and some of them presumably wouldn't be if he made watching less entertaining by interrupting the copyrighted material he's streaming.
And even if it was taken out of context, the context-free statement can still easily be constructed as admission of intention in front of a judge.
After all, people forget that streaming is a business. The persona being shown is just that, as is the entire lifestyle and design. It's all to make money. An influencer is no more "genuine" than a sales rep or a marketing designer. All extract money their audience by controlling and direction their interaction and how it impacts said audience.
So for Excuesee to actually state "Yeah my audience wants this" is actually him quite verbatim station this: I make better money if I let my audience watch copyrighted stuff on my channel. Which is, to put it mildly, a bold thing to openly admit. 😅
There's a lot of people that say that "just don't upload it to YouTube"... but he also shouldn't be watching in their entirety on stream, nor have a VoD containing those bits available (which is also the case). All of them are wrong legally.
(And in my opinion, morally too - the fair use law is actually really quite reasonable. The UK's variant of it is likely what enables Gogglebox).
I don't pay much attention to "generation wars", as in my opinion people tend to over-emphasize differences in order to (1) feel unique, (2) hate their perceived or imagined enemies.
Everyone wanna be on a team. An essentialist approach to "generations" is like astrology for unbelievers.
In any case, I don't think this video in particular fell for that trope.
Less so a 'generation war' and more so a war of how we watch and engage with media.
LegalEagle says in the video 'his borderline incoherent babbling' would provide as much 'incisive commentary' as his dog, and proceeds to call xQc 'garbage' with a graphic of xQc in a garbage bin at the dump.
We don't/can't all watch insightful and thoughtful media all of the time. xQc is goofy and fun, probably much like LegalEagle's dog. People love dogs.
Calling xQc 'garbage' sounds harsh, but it becomes more understandable when you consider his track record. This is the same guy who once promoted gambling to his young audience, subsequently apologized for it, criticized someone else for the same behavior, and then resumed with the promotion of gambling. There is nothing wrong with goofy entertainment, but at least pick someone who has morals and wouldn't literally say everything in the moment to get ahead. LegalEagle even mentions Ludwig as an example of goofy content done the morally right way.
The video also provides a few examples of content makers of the same generation (or close) which, in the author's opinion, are of good quality.
I don't intend to shit on an entire generation. I regularly watch good content from people of similar ages, and I do believe it is valid to say that xqc does not produce quality content.
But that is not a generational thing. Some things are just bad.
My point being that we should separate our subjective feelings on the quality of something from the legal implications of something.
I can appreciate that personal taste shouldn't drive the decisions of the judge, but stating our opinions about content creators on an informal venue such as an internet forum seems pretty harmless to me. Isn't that what we do with every content? Why wouldn't I state my personal opinion on the content? That's an unrealistic standard. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not in court. I'm just a random dude stating opinions on the internet.
I think there lies a middle ground between being completely informal and a courtroom. Say we were talking about Ed Sheeran vs Marvin Gaye (as happened recently) and I said 'Marvin Gaye should lose the case, and while I'm here I think his music is so bad it makes me wonder why they're even in court calling it music' - it might make you wonder if I want to talk about the intricacies of ownership law, or I just hate Marvin Gaye.
And hey, there's totally a place for both, it's whatever discussion you want to have. I just think it's important to separate the two thoughts in our heads, and that one shouldn't influence the other.
I wanted to share my view to empathise why someone might want to watch xQc, so we can hopefully get past that mental hurdle (that at least many in LegalEagle's comment section are stuck on).
Look, I believe some context is in order. This is a channel by a lawyer, about the law. This is not a channel for reviews of content creators. When the author talks about "babbling", he is doing so because it is important to characterize that the comment provided by xqc is not sufficient to expect a judge to rule in his favor under fair use. He is doing that based on the law, its application, and jurisprudence. Not his own tastes and opinions. I more than welcome your comments and observations about life, creativity, and generations. But this basic misunderstanding was taken way too far, leading to an extraneous discussion that is not at all about the content.
I made an effort to provide a top comment making the nature of the video clear, but for some reason, this subjetive misinterpretation of about 5 seconds of it dominated the discussion.
I'm not gonna lie, this is pretty frustrating. I actually like his legal reviews.
Didn't mean to frustrate, I appreciate you sharing the video and you taking the time to respond to my thoughts. I really enjoy LegalEagle, and I think this video does a great job explaining fair use in this increasingly relevant context of live streaming.
The point is that it isn't commentary, which is a key component of fair use. If you live streamed a dog "reacting" to a video then it wouldn't be commentary because a dog is incapable of making commentary. It doesnt matter if people love your dog, its not fair use.
Similarly, if xQc is making incoherent non-word reactions then it can't be commentary.
"Incisive commentary" doesn't have to be thoughtful, it can still be be goofy. I think the H3H3 "bold guy" reaction video was a good example of this back in its time. IIRC they largely just mocked the guy.
Interestingly though it may still be "transformative" - a very on the nose example sprung to mind of this pug who gets reactive at specific parts of Homeward Bound. The reaction is related to the content, but the original content is not the focus.
This particular example is less than 3 minutes long, though, and I wager if you filmed the entire movie, you'd still potentially fall afoul of copyright law even if the dog was reacting to parts of it. One of the elements of fair use is the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and that's a big factor that often weighs against reaction content.
When I used the expression "essentialist approach to generations", this is what I meant: the tendency to view people from different generations not merely as the result of their environment, but rather as essentially distinct, exaggerating their differences in order to create the perception that they are opposed in a way that is fundamental, natural, and intrinsic to their very beings, in such a way that cannot be changed or reconciled.
xQc shouldn't be watching the videos on steam at all. It's against the law and is stealing. It's not just that he's also uploading the video, streaming them in the first place, especially with his level of "reaction" is inarguably copyright infringement
I don't think streaming is offering solutions to the problem of forming actual friendships. It's certainly taking their place for whole swathes of people, particularly young men. But that's not a solution in any real sense; it's just a new, worse problem. Now we have whole groups of socially maladapted young men sinking into ever deeper rabbit holes. And they're still lonely, because following a streamer that doesn't know you was never going to fix that.
No one's being smug about this. This is a very bad thing that's happening.
I would have said - as such an outsider - that it's more because he does nothing really except some shittalking on the mental level of a 14y old. Seriously, I wouldn't know how to describe it any more favorable.
Now of course, I know I know, "internet persona". But if your stick is that you act like someone I would not want to be around for the camera, then I still will not want you around if all I know is that camera-facing personality.
Sidenote, this is something I absolutely cannot for the life of me understand. I don't need a non-expert's opinion on something unless I actually know the person on a personal friendship level (as in, their input is relevant to my everyday life as I might need to rely on their perspective or be able to reflect from it in the future). By their nature, "influencers" are not such a person.
And then it becomes a thing of:
All resolved by just giving me a link to the actual content and making me consume it myself.
That is, sure, if I follow a person online they could get me to consume content I would not otherwise. However, I would want them to promote a link. "Hey, check this out!". Not sit in the corner and talk some bullshit while I'm trying to consume content.
Exceptions apply of course when they're experts giving expert advise. That's a very different situation, but beyond commenting on internet advertising and maybe influencing, influencers by their naturally cannot provide that.
I kinda doubt that. Or rather, I doubt the content itself matters. As you say, it's "easy viewing", it's a way to shut the brain off while having background noise. I suspect to most people having that on, it's no different than when I have lyrics-less electronic music on while coding: Background noise is needed to keep the mind from wandering.
I would assume that neither the people in the show watching nor what they watch actually matters in the slightest. So long as the format is as forgettable as it is right now, they can swap out any individual part and it doesn't change the function.
And sure, maybe watching reaction videos is the same thing, but I don't think so. It seems people take this more serious, maybe out of some misguided belief that they have a social connection with the influencer instead of just being their way of generating their income - that is, the viewers are the actual product, as with any influencer.
If you're in the comment section of anything, you're doing exactly that.
I think a lot of people here have made good points about the quality of xQc as a streamer that I don't dispute, whether or not that's relevant, but I don't think xQc should be held as the standard of live streaming. I'll just run down some points to hopefully shed light from my side of the aisle, as to why someone might want to watch a streamer -
The content streamers watch is typically informative. They're videos like LegalEagle - videos that are aimed at non-experts to inform non-experts, hopefully from an expert (like LegalEagle). A streamer might pause and talk about something you wouldn't have considered, or ask an interesting question, or go on a research tangent. I think that's a fun way to engage with content while learning something about the world.
The streamer themselves might not be an expert, but they often have access to experts. Streamers have wide appeal and connections, and it's not uncommon for a topic of discussion to lead to an invitation or request from an expert to appear on stream and talk to/challenge the streamer.
A good streamer's job would be to find relevant and interesting content to talk about, which makes it easier to access that content. I also listen to a lot of radio - it's not dissimilar to that style of broadcasting. It's something I put on at work when I don't want to choose a podcast. I like that I don't know what the subject matter of the day might be, and I think that helps expand my worldview.
There's a lot of bad everything wherever you look. There's ill-informed political demagogues who shout on the radio and television, there's people who write articles or books on subjects that they have no right to.
'React streaming' a big legal mess that the world needs to figure out, but it's an increasingly relevant format that's not completely worthless, and not going anywhere.
Note however that none of the three categories you list there are reaction videos from people like the Exquesee.
All three of those categories meaningfully provide something, but reaction videos in the category that is on display here are purely performative art where the content being used is essentially meaningless. If it becomes the focus, then it should not be - as evident by the fact that it might then just be illegal streaming of other's intellectual property.
And I agree, if it's about an expert commenting on something, a commentator that is among experts commenting on something or content discovery (which results in, say, posting a link here to something interesting so it can be consumed as-is instead of being overlaid by a franky pretty insultingly stupid influencer persona) are all valid reasons for an influencer to fair use someone else's content.
It's just that with a whole lot of these modern successful streaming-influencers like XKC, they're none of that. And might not in fact be fair use, which is kinda the point.
CGPGrey started filing some DMCA takedown notices against channels like these (including Ludwig, who was mentioned in the video as a good reactor).
He balked at VloggingThroughHistory's counter-claim, which is a shame - yeah, he might pause and talk a lot more than, say, xQc, but holy hell, he still has no need to include the /entire/ video. Like, all that guy has to do is hire a video editor, or use some basic editing tool (like, Microsoft's ClipChamp would suffice) to trim out the bits where he is just nodding, and that channel would be fine. It's sincere laziness from YouTube content creators who wholesale rip-off other people's hard work.
Good on CGPGrey, I hope more creators get the courage to start copyright claiming these leeches. The top streamers are already incredibly overpaid for doing almost no real work, the fact that they think they're entitled to someone elses blood, sweat, and tears to "keep chat entertained while I make a sandwich" is peak narcissism.
Even Cinemasins, who do roughly the same thing to movies to churn out content, at least have the decency to edit the clips to "prove" whatever punchline they have.
I just want to point out that before this blew up with XQC's debate with H3, Hasanabi stole a video from a smaller creator while he left the stream to go eat. In fact Hasan had a very uncomfortable chat with Ethan, his co-host on a regular show, because he couldn't attack or defend the practise without making himself look bad.
This is the video said creator, Jay Exci, made afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TVSfHbpR6k
I really don’t get why a streamer would leave the room to eat while the stream is still going. Why don’t they schedule their time so they don’t have to eat during it? Why can’t they bring snacks so they don’t get hungry? I get that you might lose viewers if you end the stream while you eat, but that feels like a kind of shitty thing to do to an audience if you aren’t at least putting up a card that says you’ll be right back.
This practice of playing someone else’s copyrighted videos seems a pretty egregious example of copyright infringement. It just sounds like a dick move overall.
It is not uncommon for people to stream 10 to 18 hours a day. I'm not saying it's a good idea or an excuse, but it does happen.
If you really, truly are reacting and making commentary/satire fully compliant within fair use (which is difficult with a full video and live viewing), then you should be pausing the video when you walk away.
Being hungry or needing to use the bathroom is not a valid defense to copyright claims.
Yes, you are correct, this is not a defense. Just a clarification on @Akir's comment.
Let me tell you about the streamers who sleep during streams. Or "sleep", I haven't really looked into it.
Change 'copyright' to 'profit right' and slide a cut of the revenue generated to any/all media that is covered by the reactors. By virtue of covering something, they share a slice of their revenue generated from their coverage of it. Solves most of the problems inherent in this silly business model. Let the hosting provider hash the payments out with the content owners, the conversation does not need to involve anyone else. This way, anyone can cover anything they like without worrying about takedowns, strikes, and the rest of the nonsense.
Why put the burden on the host if the reactor is the one violating the law? Asking permission from the original creator could result in licensing terms that include profit sharing if the creator agrees to license the content. Asking permission, and respecting the rights of the original creator solves all copyright issues. If the reactor decides not to do that, and aren't covered by fair use then they should have to worry about take-downs, strikes, or lawsuits.
Regardless of the legality, I don't like cheering against the ability for content like this to exist. It's a lot of fun watching a streamer and chat channel you're participating in react to stuff you're watching together. I don't think it's good when copyright gets in the way of kinds of content existing. Plenty of stuff I've liked such as game mods, vaporwave, and fanfiction have had trouble with copyright, and the world wouldn't be better if copyright won over them.
One of my favorite Twitch channels broadcasts random shows (including a lot of Star Trek and random amateur Trek fan films) late at night with an active chat room. It's too bad there isn't a legally-clear way to do this more freely. Twitch does support Prime Video watch parties, but it limits the streamer's ability to react/interject with the video content, has a limited selection, and only works for viewers with a Prime Video subscription.
I guess in the case of a streamer making a lot of money from the streams like xQc, it would be great if there was some way to direct some of his revenue to the stuff he rebroadcasts, but most ways I can imagine it working would put large limits on either small streamers who couldn't afford it or the content they could rebroadcast. It's hard for me to imagine a crackdown on this that results in revenue getting to the original video creators instead of blocking or providing a chilling effect on this content existing.
In this case the downside is quite a bit more sympathetic, though. Many of the youtube creators these streamers are crimping off of are very small - they're not exactly the usual monoliths we see in copyright disputes. XQC taking, say, 30% of their audience could seriously make it financially unviable for them to continue when most teeter on the edge of financial insolvency in normal times.
Copyright does allow for a way for this to happen; content creators simply need to have licensing agreements where they get royalties from the streamers. There are ways to make this not as legally tedious as well - just like how all indies doesn't need a lawyer or do a bunch of paperwork for Unreal engine to take royalties from their releases.
I have strong opinions on this, since I see the examples in the video to be very clear cut which is rare in the world of fair use. I don't see myself as cheering for this content to go away, so much as standing by the rights of the people who put their time, effort, and money into creating the original work. We're not talking about Disney holding copyright on Steamboat Willie for 60 years after the artists and director died, or the Eagles blocking every video on YouTube with more than 3 notes of their songs in them.
To me its similar to an online version of a bar showing a boxing/UFC fight, except the bar hijacked a satellite feed instead of paying for the commercial license. Factors like it being a small bar, or the patrons really wanting to see the fight, or it being too much of a hassle don't absolve the owner of their right to their original work. Maybe they give a discount for a small audience, or have a min audience size before charging but that's still up to the owner of the work to decide and not the streamer.